Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Coal Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), it has been indicated to me that many Members wish to participate in this debate. I would like brief speeches so that we can have wide participation.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I am grateful for having secured this debate on the coal industry because it is at a very important juncture. It is once again at the crossroads. I am pleased to be debating it with the Minister, as I know that she has empathy with the industry and mining communities because she represents one and understands the issues. I hope that we can encourage that empathy to translate into positive action to support the coal mining industry.
Last week, there was an announcement by RJB, the largest mining company in England, that Ellington colliery, the last in the north-east, would be closed in February 2000 with the loss of 400 quality jobs. There is a shadow across the whole of the English coalfield because some 5 million tonnes are already on stock and imports are penetrating some of the markets that United Kingdom coal previously had. I hope that this debate will play some small part in trying to find a way forward that will retain what remains of the industry within a secure, diverse and sustainable energy framework.
Government policy was contained in the October 1998 White Paper on energy, which was supposed to pave the way for a level playing field that would help the coal industry. It is fair to say that one year on, it is clear that that policy needs reviving if we are to save the coal industry. Collieries are closing, employment in deep mines is falling and the future of the entire English coalfield is threatened. However, it is not only the English coalfield that is affected, as we shall see.
Only 18 of British Coal's former deep mines are operating. There is one colliery in Scotland—the Longannet complex—two in Wales and 15 in England, soon to be cut to 14. We are fast approaching the point of losing the industry's critical mass. It is not only the English coalfield that is suffering; the Welsh and Scottish coalfields suffer from the same problems.
Since this debate was announced, I have received several letters. The chairman of Tower colliery, Tyrone O'Sullivan, says that it pays £5.4 million per annum to

the Exchequer and has kept 400 people in quality jobs, thus reducing the cost of state benefits. He says:
The UK Government needs to decide where the UK stands on Energy needs. The UK Coal Industry is the most efficient by far in Europe.
The problems we face within Anthracite is the Polish and Chinese. This coal is dumped in the UK. Also subsidies within Europe, Germany, Spain, Poland. We've stopped German coal into UK but it is within Europe affecting our exports to France, Germany and Belgium.
Coal prices are at a 20 year low, this is not sustainable but if UK pits close now…we will have no industry to respond in the future.
He then makes a telling point:
Tower Colliery has constantly invested into the future with heavy financial developments of the mine and infrastructure and would like to develop another part of the mine which would produce coal directly for Aberthaw Power Station. But this development is costly and due to present uncertainties we are unable to commit ourselves. This would result in further employment at Tower if this was able to commence.
Tower feels that the uncertainties have been made worse by the Baglan Bay gas-fired power station, which will threaten the market at Aberthaw.
It is not only jobs in mining that are threatened. For example, I received a letter on Monday from the Association of British Mining Equipment Companies expressing grave concern about developments in the UK coal industry. Those companies export about £300 million of mining machinery and have been selling £200 million of equipment into the English coalfield, although that has declined recently. Every pit that closes reduces orders and threatens manufacturing jobs.
I refer the Minister to what Philip Deakin, the association's director general has to say. His letter states:
It is apparent, and has always been understood, that should the UK mining industry cease to be a legitimate and equal fuel supplier to UK energy generators, then the effect on this manufacturing sector will be catastrophic. The loss of up to 8,000 ABMEC member company engineering jobs and over 50 companies to the UK economy will inevitably follow. This in addition to 15,000 direct employees within the mining industry.
Redundancies have and are taking place. Company turnovers have been severely reduced and profit margins slashed. Without the trading foundation of a UK coal mining industry, our drive for export sales, currently in excess of £300 million annually cannot be sustained and will inevitably leave this association's member companies with only one or two options—to cease trading or move abroad.
That is not an idle threat: if the coal industry were to decline further, members of ABMEC tell me that they would have to consider relocating in countries such as Australia and America, where there is still a deep coal mining industry. Therefore, the threat extends far wider then the core coal mining industry.
When we examine the British coal mining industry, we find that the industry's development and the cost reductions it has achieved suggest that, with a little aid, it is quite capable in the short term of reaching a point where it can stand on its own two feet. In 1994, imports into the UK cost between £1.20 and £1.30 per gigajoule, whereas UK production costs were between £1.40 to £1.50 per gigajoule. The UK industry has been able to reduce its costs and dramatically decrease the gap: now, it has got its price down and is signing contracts at £1.15 per gigajoule. However, import prices have also fallen dramatically: they now come in at between 70p and 75p per gigajoule.
How are we to react? Costs in the UK industry are falling and there are indications of further opportunities that might prove beneficial. In such circumstances, it is fair to ask the Minister to consider seriously action to assist the industry, perhaps formulated through regional selective assistance.

Mr. William Cash: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on choosing to debate this subject. On the question of aid, he will recall that those of us who voted against the pit closure programme were deeply concerned about the fact that Germany's industry receives a multi-billion pound annual subsidy, authorised by the European Commission. With all the current noise about Europe, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time we sorted out that issue, as the Select Committee on European Scrutiny has chosen to do shortly?

Mr. Clapham: I am asking my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider what can be done to give aid to the UK coal industry. My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware that massive aid is paid to the German, French and Spanish industries.
I believe that the simplest way to give aid would be to pay the generators the difference between delivered international coal market prices and the UK price, so that the subsidy went to generators in the short term, until the industry was able to find stability. Assistance to preserve the industry is required because it is accepted that UK coal mining is the most productive in Europe. It is perverse that the French, German and Spanish coal industries should receive about £3.5 billion in state aids when they have no chance of becoming competitive.
In the Gallery this morning are miners from some of the threatened collieries. They are disappointed that help is given to other UK industries, but that the plight of their industry is not currently being taken into account. Their disappointment is all the greater because they know that coal prices will rise in future and that the absence of a competitive indigenous coal mining industry will make us less secure and far more dependent on imported fuels.
Looking at the other two thirds of the energy mix reveals good reasons why the Minister should consider providing an aid package to the coal industry. Gas reserves are depleting rapidly. The 1998 "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics" shows that on current use, proven plus probable reserves will last for only 14 more years. It is striking to compare that with the 1992 statistics, which predicted their lasting another 24 years. In six years, 10 years supply of gas has been "lost". The Department of Trade and Industry should focus on those statistics and help the UK coal industry in order to ensure that we do not become overdependent on imported gas and that we have a diverse energy mix.
In 1998, coal doubled its price advantage over gas as a fuel for power generation, yet coal burn continues to fall: it fell by 23 per cent. in the first half of 1999 and new gas-fired stations continue to be approved. The UK coal report for October compared the prices of coal and gas, and revealed that coal is a significantly cheaper generating fuel than gas: gas generation costs 1.4p per kWh, whereas coal generation costs 1.16p per kWh, so coal has a fairly large margin of advantage over gas. Against that

background, it is extremely disappointing that section 36 consents and section 14 consents to build more gas-fired power stations continue to be granted. I hope that the Minister will tell us that she intends to ensure that the moratorium is strictly observed in future, perhaps until the proposed changes resulting from the pool review have bedded down.
Nuclear power carries inherent risks and waste storage problems remain unresolved. The recent accident at Tokaimura in Japan reminds us of the enormous risks involved in nuclear energy. Most nuclear stations in the UK are operating beyond their design lives. Earlier this year, the nuclear installation inspectorate expressed concern about staffing levels at some nuclear power stations; the full report, when published, should make interesting reading. It is fair to predict that the next few years will bring the decommissioning of some of the older nuclear power stations. Those factors and a need to avoid overdependence on gas imports are reasons why we should ensure the survival of a UK coal industry.
Viewing the industry in the context of our environmental obligations gives rise to some concern, because the Environment Agency's tight emission policy poses a threat. That policy far exceeds our environmental obligations and unless rationality prevails, it could become another factor that helps to strangle the coal industry. I accept that we have to face up to our environmental commitments and no one suggests otherwise; however, those commitments must be balanced within an appropriate energy framework.
If we are to increase generation from coal-fired stations to make up the loss when the nuclear power stations are decommissioned and to restrict gas, we need more meaningful investment in clean coal technology. Clean coal demonstration plants should be built now to prepare the way for the higher efficiency coal plants that will be required to replace the old, low efficiency plants. The Government must act now if the United Kingdom coal industry is to be retained as a viable part of the energy mix.
The Government could consider taking several actions now. For example, they could end the section 36 and section 14 consents. They could consider bringing forward negotiations on the French interconnector to enable the contracts to be renegotiated. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported on the coal industry in 1993, it suggested that there should be reciprocal arrangements so that as much electricity could be sent through the interconnector to France as was received in this country.
There should be more investment in clean coal plant, and action should be taken to protect the UK coal industry against dumping from eastern Europe. We have heard recently about dumping Polish coal. The letter from Tower colliery mentions the threat that it faces from dumped coal.
The Minister should consider regional selective assistance or some other aid package for the industry. The aid should be paid to the generators to make up the price difference, as I suggested earlier. Failure to act now could lead to a speedy demise of the UK coal industry. If a sane and sensible energy policy with a proportion of UK coal burn is to be retained in future, we must act decisively.
The Minister has considered and responded to the coalfield task force report, which the Deputy Prime Minister instigated to examine how the victimised miners' pensions might be reinstated. At what stage are those inquiries? How long will it be before progress is made?

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has been able to arrange the debate for today. It could not have been more timely for Ellington colliery in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman referred to its closure in his remarks. The Ellington problem is part of the coal industry's wider problems, and I shall begin by considering Ellington specifically.
When I was elected, there were three working pits in my constituency which employed 3,500 men. We retain the last working pit in the north-east of England where 430 men are in work and make a massive contribution to a local economy that currently has little else. The closure of Ellington colliery would be a disaster for an area that stretches for many miles; it would affect several other constituencies. The pit had more than 1,000 jobs when it was closed by British Coal and reopened by RJB Mining. The much smaller work force profitably produces larger quantities of coal than its predecessors. That is a remarkable achievement. The pit employs people from a wide area—from Alnwick to Amble, Hadston, Widdrington, Lynemouth and Ellington, as well as many men in adjoining constituencies such as Blyth Valley and Wansbeck.
A wider north anxiety—that the economy of the north is far behind that of the rest of the country—forms the background to the worries about Ellington. Newspaper headlines such as, "What about the North, Mr. Blair?", reflect a general feeling that the north is in no position to cope with a blow such as the closure of Ellington colliery. The measures that have been announced so far cannot deal with the consequences.
The pit is in an area of serious unemployment, and many of the measures that the Government propose as alternatives to keeping the pit open have been used in dealing with earlier pit closures. They have not created anything like the increase in the number of jobs that the area needs to cope with the 1,000 jobs that have already been lost at Ellington colliery, let alone the 400 that will be lost if the pit closes in February.
Ellington feeds its coal directly to the Alcan power station, which powers the Alcan smelter. It would be hard to imagine a more efficient arrangement for coal. There are no transport costs and thus no environmental consequences of transporting coal around the country. Ellington uses the best method of transferring coal. However, the coal contract with Alcan belongs to RJB Mining and the idea that someone else could buy the pit without the contract is ludicrous. The RJB press release stated that the company would be interested in offers to take over the pit. No one will take it over without the contract to feed the coal straight to Alcan.
RJB Mining has massive opencast resources in Northumberland. It has the lion's share of the large amount of opencast mining in Northumberland. My constituency has the largest amount in the country. Local residents were told that they had to accept opencast mining because it was necessary to keep the deep mine

open; that, without the sweetener of opencast coal and its lower price, we could not keep the deep mine open. Now, we have opencast, but we will not have the deep mine unless drastic action is taken.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone pointed out, the coal market is unnaturally depressed at the moment. No one believes that the coal price will remain at its current low level. No one assumes that the coal market will be easy in future, but it is generally accepted that the current price is unrealistically low. The state of the market is assisted by massive subsidies, such as £3 billion to £4 billion a year in European Union countries and those in other countries too—leaving aside the current level of subsidy in Poland.
Therefore, we must put the case for some assistance for the coal industry over this difficult period. Otherwise, when the market settles down to a sensible level, there will be no British coal industry to take advantage of it. We cannot simply open and shut down the British coal industry at a moment's notice; pits cannot be closed and quickly reopened. Once pits are closed, they are usually lost permanently. That will happen at Ellington.
We have met the Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who were ready to meet us at short notice and to consider the matter. However, we were presented with the strict doctrinaire view that the Government would not grant any state aid to the coal industry. That is an uncomfortable position for the Government to take when the coal market is in such an unnatural state. The Government's view constituted a curious unilateralism: they claimed that, if we did not provide state aid, all other countries would stop providing it. I can understand why the Government want to end the distortions of the coal market that state aid creates. However, we cannot do that by letting our coal industry go simply to show how damaging a subsidised coal market can be. That is an absurd position.
We must ensure that our coal industry can survive this period at least at a minimal level. Heaven knows, the British coal industry is now smaller than anyone could imagine. Instead of sitting back, allowing the industry to be destroyed and then claiming, "We told you so; we told you that state aid was a bad thing", the Government should take a more pragmatic view and find a way of assisting the industry through this period.
The objective of European-approved aid for the coal industry is viability. Ellington can be viable if it is allowed to continue to fulfil its Alcan contract in the next three or four years, and receives assistance to meet the additional costs resulting from sandstone layers that have been found and to bridge the price gap. That might lead to the possibility of reconsidering the longer-term reserves that exist at Ellington. Although the first move into the northerly part of the pit's potential reserves yielded coal that might have been unsuitable for generation, there is no evidence to suggest that coal a little further away would not be highly suitable for power generation. That possibility could be explored if the pit were kept going.
The previous Government introduced a scheme in 1993—they did not spend very much money on it—and it provides a model for what could be done. However, it is not the only model. As has been suggested already, we do not have to provide a direct subsidy to the coal producer; it could be a subsidy to the generators and many people would feel more comfortable with that. One way


or another, it is essential to try to bridge the price gap in that short period. This country has the lowest production costs for coal in Europe, but we are allowing the industry to go to the wall because production costs are subsidised elsewhere and there is an unnatural condition in the coal market.
I was disturbed that Ministers did not tell us that, although they were worried and although there were legal difficulties, they would consider whether a scheme could be devised to meet European criteria. There has been state aid to the coal industry in Britain, so it is not a question of suddenly introducing it. It existed under the 1993 scheme and £12 million was paid out under it. Therefore, there is a baseline from which we can operate. Ministers did not say that they would consider what could be achieved and that they would consult the Treasury to see whether they could find the money. There was none of that. They simply said, "No. That is not part of the doctrine. We do not do this sort of thing." We cannot take such a rigid and doctrinaire line when we are looking at the possible disappearance of an industry in conditions that are artificial—and that are made artificial in part by subsidies elsewhere.
The wider issues that go far beyond Ellington have already been mentioned and other Members will raise them in the debate. If we have no domestic coal industry, we will almost certainly do fatal damage to our mining engineering industry and to the production of mining equipment in this country. We need a domestic industry to ensure that we are in the forefront in the development of technology in mining engineering and in the sales of mining equipment. Big potential markets for mining equipment will exist particularly in the far east where there will be deep mining. We should ensure that we have an industry that can take advantage of the opportunities presented by that.
In many other parts of the country, closures, such as the one now planned for Ellington, would have a disastrous effect on local jobs. The problem is not peculiar to my constituency, but the impact on my constituency and a couple of neighbouring ones will be devastating. I have seen no evidence that we shall receive the scale of assistance that could begin to match the jobs already lost, let alone those that will be added to the total.
There must be a major rethink about how parts of the north-east are funded. We need to consider education funding, health funding and why we do not have something like the Barnett formula, which examines needs in the region, if we are even to begin to tackle the problem. In addition, we must consider specific aids that are designed to bring in jobs on the necessary scale to replace the mining jobs that have been lost. That will not be accomplished overnight, so I ask the Minister to consider whether a scheme, which would meet European Union criteria, could be introduced for a short period. Such a scheme would not be inordinately expensive in comparison to aids given to other industries and it would keep those 430 jobs in existence over the next few years. That would an extremely valuable thing for the Minister to do. I simply cannot understand the attitude that says, "We cannot even consider that." I urge her to reconsider urgently.

Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing such an important and timely debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on reinforcing those made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
The recent announcement of the closure of Ellington, the colliery I worked at until 1994, will effectively end 600 years of coal mining in the great northern coalfield. It will consign 430 men to the dole unless a rescue package can be put together or unless the colliery is sold to a new owner.
Ellington is an important regional asset. It played a major role under both the National Coal Board and British Coal, consistently making a profit. It has made a profit every year under RJB Mining, employing only one third of the work force that existed under British Coal and producing nearly 1 million tonnes of coal a year. That is a magnificent achievement by all concerned, but their reward for that is the sack.
Mr. Budge claims that the colliery faces severe geological conditions and puts it up for sale. To ensure that he attracts a buyer, he takes away the market that Ellington now has with Alcan. That is an insult to everyone who works at the colliery.
I have no doubt, as do the work force, that Ellington has the potential for a long and viable future. There are known reserves at the pit of about 300 million tonnes, which represent fuel to power the next millennium. In order to mine that coal, Ellington needs investment, but that investment has not been made by RJB Mining. There is no doubt that Mr. Budge's company is directly responsible for the announced closure.
However, if Ellington can be assisted through the next four years, a decent future is possible. The pit can continue to supply Alcan and, during the next four years, we are endeavouring to build a new clean coal power station. The Wansbeck Energy Company has received its second tranche of European funding for a full feasibility study into such a project, where we hope to develop on site not only a power plant, but a clean energy centre, manufacturing wind turbines and developing photovoltaics and other forms of renewable energy. Ellington's survival is key to that visionary project.
About £10 million is required to ensure continued production and it would guarantee 430 jobs for the next four to five years. It is fairly obvious that RJB Mining has no intention of investing that sort of money. Sadly, for Mr. Budge, investing in Australia and Indonesia is infinitely preferable to investing in this country. To bleed his UK coal industry to invest abroad is a disgraceful state of affairs. I therefore make no appeals on behalf of RJB Mining.
I appeal, on behalf of the 430 miners who work at Ellington and their families, for the Government to intervene, to grant aid and, if necessary, to subsidise Ellington to protect those jobs. There is an overwhelming social case and a powerful economic case for that. More importantly, the Government have an opportunity to give something back to communities who have given so much to this nation.
There is also an overwhelming social case for assistance. The area surrounding Ellington has been in decline for more than 20 years. We have development


area status, but need an enterprise zone. I urge the Government—whatever happens to Ellington—to provide an enterprise zone for the area. The problems of previous closures are many and varied. The area has been described as an inner city pulled apart. It has been made much worse by the 18 years of neglect and wilful destruction carried out by the previous Tory Government. We have objective 2 and 5b status when, statistically, we qualify for objective 1. With the exception of football, we are at the top of all the bad leagues and at the bottom of all the good ones.
Ellington underpins the local economy, which is still very fragile. Some £10 million each year is paid in wages and we cannot afford to lose that. The only guarantee of a job for the 430 men who work at the colliery is the one that they now have. Despite all the schemes for retraining, the task forces and national, European and regional funding, unemployment is still more than twice the national average.
I am delighted to say that the Government are attempting to address those issues through improved economic development, education and health action zones and all the mainstream improvements that have been announced over the past two and a half years. The closure of Ellington will set that work back even further. There is a powerful economic case to be made. Some £10 million over four to five years will guarantee jobs for the 430 people who work there and will provide an opportunity for work for many more years to come.
Subsidies to private industry are given in one form or another every day—from farming to car manufacturing, although there is, I might add, over—production in both industries. I have no difficulties with such support. In one case, jobs are preserved and expanded; in the other, it preserves a way of life. However, what is good for one industry is surely good for another. Ellington needs regional assistance to re-equip its powered roof supports in order to mine the available coal. The Government can, if they so wish, provide such a subsidy for UK coal. I urge the Minister to make such a case in Europe.
I have touched only on the social and economic arguments, but, in conclusion, I make one last appeal, which stands above all others. Let this Government—on behalf of the nation—give something back to the communities who so desperately need it. On the eve of armistice day, I remind the House that this may be the last chance to make such an appeal for the mining industry. I remind the House of the contribution made to freedom and democracy, and to the wealth of this nation, by miners and our communities. Mining villages the length and breadth of the land have two memorials to our fallen. From Ypres to the Somme and from Tobruk to Arnhem, miners paid the ultimate sacrifice. From the disasters of West Stanley to Hartley, from Easington to Woodhorn, mining communities paid dearly to fuel the industrial revolution and to power this century.
For nearly 20 years, Labour politicians have watched the destruction of Britain's mining industry and have been unable to do anything at all. We now have the power to do something about that destruction. We can make a genuine difference. On behalf of the mining community that I represent, I ask that this Government—our Government—intervene to protect 430 much-needed jobs.

Dr. Michael Clark: I shall speak briefly, as we were asked to do so that other Members could speak. It will be easy for me to be brief, because I want only to support the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). I congratulate him on initiating the debate.
The hon. Member will remember that he and I served on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry; many other hon. Members will recall the late, lamented Energy Committee, which did such a good job to protect energy in general and the coal industry in particular. The hon. Member will remember that, when we joined the Trade and Industry Committee in 1992, we intended to look at a range of issues, although when I suggested that the Committee examine the coal industry, I was told by one of its senior Conservative members that that would be a reverse takeover of the Trade and Industry Committee by the Energy Committee.
However, within a matter of weeks, we were engaged in a serious inquiry into the coal industry, due to the decision taken by the Conservative Government to shut 70 pits—in fact, only half were to be closed, and half were to be put into review. However, as many Labour Members will be aware, the review was a device for delayed closure and, at that time, we were left with only about 30 pits. There was death by stealth in the coal industry, and that continues at present. In opposition, Labour was going to do so much to help and save the industry, but the death of the industry by stealth continues under the Labour Government, as it did under the previous Conservative Government.
I reinforce two points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. First, I was pleased that he referred to clean coal technology. Although we do not lack ideas, we lag behind in the development of that technology. It is a shame that we cannot make progress in that matter, so as to protect not only the coal industry, but our future fuel supplies.
Secondly, the hon. Member referred to the interconnector across the channel. Seven years ago, we gave much consideration to that matter. The amount of energy coming into this country from France is equivalent to the amount that could be obtained from four to five pits. Four or five pits have closed unnecessarily due to the fact that we are bringing in nuclear power subsidised by the French Government. That is not fair competition. That nuclear power is subsidised just as much as the Spanish, French and German coal that was referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone.
I am pleased to follow the passionate speech made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), who has worked in the industry and in the colliery that is now subject to closure. He said that he would not plead the case of RJB Mining—I can understand that. However, unless, to some extent, one pleads the case for RJB, one cannot argue for the coal industry. I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to plead the case for the coal industry, and I am sure that he does so, but, in making that case, he will also be pleading for RJB. I know that he does not want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Since it took over a vast chunk of the British coal industry, RJB has mined 150 million tonnes of coal—80 per cent. of which has gone to the power stations.


The company received no subsidy, but, over the same time, Germany, France and Spain spent £14.5 billion on subsidy. That works out at almost £49 a tonne—more than the selling price of British coal seven or eight years ago. It is a massive subsidy, which permits industry in those countries to have coal that is almost free.
RJB spent almost £400 million on new plant and the replacement of equipment, and a further £1,000 million on accessing new reserves—£1.4 billion is a big investment, but it is only one tenth of the subsidy that goes into the industry in France, Germany and Spain. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone pointed out that British coal prices have come down from about 1.4p to 1.15p per gigajoule, but that the world price is between 70p and 80p. How can any coal mine in this country compete with world coal prices—or even European coal prices—without some Government assistance?
A graph of coal production over the past five years shows that, with their big subsidies, French and German output has been steady, and that Spanish output has gone up. The United Kingdom—where there is no Government assistance—is the only major mining country in Europe where output has gone down. As has been pointed out, 7,000 men are employed in RJB alone, and there are huge knock-on effects for those employed in the mining equipment companies referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I propose that the Government should give some assistance to the British coal industry—perhaps paid when coal is delivered to the power stations. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone suggested, coal could be sold to the power stations at prices similar to world prices. If we do not do that, we shall destroy what is left of our coal industry, at a time when gas reserves are being depleted and oil is no longer being found at previous rates. We shall want more and more energy, but we will have isolated much of our coal energy underground.
I do not really believe in subsidies—I believe in competition and free markets. I believe in level playing fields. However, they do not exist for the French, the German and the Spanish. If we cannot have a level playing field for competition and free markets, let us have one for subsidy. If some people say, as Governments—whether Labour or Conservative—have done, that it is not possible for us to subsidise our coal industry, they should remember that the European Commission, when defending subsidies paid to the German coal industry, made it clear that the UK had the right to subsidise its industry if it wanted to. In the absence of that assistance, the conclusion must be drawn that the British Government do not want to help the coal industry. I am aware that the Government have enormous sympathy with the industry, but that will not keep the pits alive—at some stage, there has to be cash.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I shall not speak for too long because I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate, which is timely in the light of the closure of Ellington pit.
Let us take our minds back a few years to when miners and their families and communities came to London in their thousands upon thousands. It is reckoned that those on the countryside march have since outstripped that number, although, at the time, the miners' march was certainly the biggest that we had known. The Tory Government did not take a blind bit of notice of the feelings of those miners and marchers. It is interesting that the Tories are now taking into account the concerns of those in the countryside in their communities, but that the miners were left to die at the wayside. Given what is happening now, the debate is a timely reminder of what happened then.
Today, the coal industry is in the throes of dying. Along with others, I plead for something to be done. We must remind ourselves that RJB Mining bought the industry at a give-away price. In fact, it would not be a bad idea to renationalise the industry at that price, give Mr. Budge his money back and tell him to go to Australia.
The crux of the matter is that Mr. Budge is investing thousands of pounds in an opencast mine somewhere in Australia and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) said, in mines in other countries, too. I wonder why. Is RJB Mining to become a core cartel? Will Mr. Budge, with the help of the Government and the Tories, bring an end to the coal industry in this country, so that he can import coal from Australia and all the other countries in which he is investing his money—money made by the British miners?
No Government subsidy has been given, so Mr. Budge can claim that he did not get anything from them—apart from cheap pits—nevertheless, it is unfair of him to ask for money to keep British mines open when he is investing his money abroad. It should be made very plain that this guy is ripping off British miners and taxpayers. It is unfair that the British taxpayer should be asked to give him money while he is investing it abroad.
The industry is a two-way business. Although it is not to our liking, the coal industry is privatised, so RJB Mining should put its money where its mouth is. At the moment, all it is doing is making a profit from the pits, but, as soon as they hit trouble—such things happen to pits; they are living things—they are closed. That is not good for the industry. Mr. Budge has a responsibility. He could meet the Minister and offer to invest millions of pounds in Ellington colliery, provided that the Government help out, but he does not want to do so. All he wants is to get his money, close the pits and be away to somewhere else. All we want is a partnership.
My plea, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for the Prime Minister to renationalise the pits has fallen on deaf ears because the Labour Government do not want to take such a course. The pits should be renationalised. There must be a partnership; no one man should ask for subsidies while investing elsewhere. I plead with RJB Mining—not the Government—to show us the colour of its money. Perhaps then it will get some money out of the Government.

Mr. William Cash: Those of us who voted against the pit closure programme remember extremely well the sound and fury at the time, not only against the Government but from Labour Members, who claimed that they believed in the coal industry. I shall not utter a word


of criticism of any Labour Back Bencher who is taking part in this debate because I know how they are constrained and how much they are fighting for the interests of coal miners. I accuse the Government.
For example, in his pre-Budget statement only yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the gas, electricity and water regulators promoting competition. What about the coal industry? I should like to hear a little about that. We know that the Chancellor has £9 billion in his so-called war chest. Why is he not using that money to help coal miners? Will somebody tell me? Will the Minister reply to that point, because I should like to know? On behalf of the miners, I am very angry with the Government because of their hypocrisy. Labour Members stirred up feelings while the previous Government were in office, but Labour, in government, is doing exactly the same as its predecessor. They are a bunch of hypocrites.
The Government are doing nothing to help. If Labour Back Benchers are not prepared to say this, I shall say it for them: the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on subsidies are absolutely true. It is possible for the Government to provide subsidies, but they will not do so. Can do, but will not is the truth of the matter. The miners are left to take account of that fact and to take it out on the Government for their complete failure to look after mining interests.
The European issue has also provoked sound and fury. I have just heard the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talking about obeying the European rules. To do so may be one thing, but what are such rules supposed to achieve? We have problems at the moment with the French on beef, but on coal, the rules are wrong. They are canted and stacked against the British coal miner and the British coal industry.
Recently, in my constituency, a massive series of grants have been made in order, in the words of the Government representative, to capture what is known as the Grindley lane site for major investment. Such grants have been used to bribe and blackmail people into accepting the site. Up the road at Madeley, next to Silverdale, where the miners in my constituency have worked and slaved for years, but which is being closed—as is Trentham—not a penny of that money is being made available.
The Government are absolutely hypocritical, and it is time that their Back Benchers turned on them. What we hear about public services can be applied to the coal industry as well. It is time that the British people woke up to the fact that most of this stuff is being driven by a craven surrendering to a European regime. That is the name of the game, and everyone in the House knows it.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate and on his very able speech. I must declare an interest: I am a consultant to Scottish Coal. My speech will concentrate on the critical financial difficulties in which the Scottish coal industry finds itself due to the problems of delivering opencast coal to customers down south in England.
The problem arises from the fact that a rail company, EWS, has given priority to moving by rail foreign coal that is unloaded at the deep-water port of Hunterston. EWS has a near monopoly in handling bulk freight, and

has taken capacity from indigenous coal producers in order to satisfy the contract for imported coal. The loss of revenue to Scottish Coal from the sale—or non-sale—of coal costs £500,000 a week. The knock-on effect is obvious.
The coal produced in Scotland is low in sulphur and is blended with high-sulphur coal from deep mines in England, which makes the coal acceptable to generating units. The resulting cash flow problems in Scotland and England affect the viability of deep mines and miners' jobs.
The haemorrhage of money cannot go on. Foreign coal poses a threat due to the strength of the pound and direct and indirect subsidies by foreign Governments and multinationals. In South Africa, rail companies are subsidised to bring coal to ports. Polish coal subsidies have been mentioned, while in the case of Colombian coal, negotiations take place at the point of a gun.
If we are to have a coal industry in the United Kingdom, the Government must step in. All foreign coal is bought in American dollars, and that causes a balance of payments crisis. Every tonne of British coal that is burnt represents a saving to the Exchequer and a job in the UK. It is logical that the Government should take an interest, in the short term and the long term, if the coal industry is to survive.
I make one special plea. The freight problem cannot wait to be solved. It must be given a higher priority, because a week of costs at £500,000 is a week too long.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: In the interests of brevity, I shall refer to just two issues that have been mentioned in the debate, and try to impress upon the Minister the need to consider seriously the issues that confront the industry. The first issue is that of jobs, which are influenced by coal stocks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the interest in clean coal technology.
The Government could give assistance in both respects. The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone should be seriously considered. We should be helping the coal industry by allowing coal to be delivered to power stations at a price equal to that of subsidised imported coal. I see no difficulty with that, and I shall state my reasons.
The development and engineering of clean coal technology would be in the interests of the country, especially the mining industry. That technology is proven. We had the Grimethorpe scheme, which, incidentally, was sold by the previous Government when we were so near to success. That was a crime. It was a sin on their part. If they had not sold the scheme, we could have been operating that system now. However, it is not too late for us to pursue that option.
In doing justice to the mining industry, we have no need to look for taxpayer's money. Since 1994, when the Government became guarantor of the mineworkers pension scheme and staff superannuation fund, more than £1,000 million in interest has been paid into the Chancellor's coffers. We could recycle back into the industry some of those funds—funds that have been paid by the miners and the industry in the past, and which are now being channelled into Treasury.
I make a plea to the Minister that we now need joined-up government. We need the Chancellor of the Exchequer to release some of the money that he has received, not from taxpayers as such, but from the industry. We could then set up a public-private partnership to develop clean coal technology. That technology is a success story, ripe for development, and there is no reason for us to delay in setting up a PPP. We could use the funds that have already been generated. Moreover, further funding from those pension schemes is guaranteed, because when they are revalued there is always an increase, which is paid to the Chancellor.

Mr. Eric Illsley: We have spoken about renationalisation of the coal industry as though it were a bridge too far, but given RJB's share price at the moment—the valuation of that company—it would be far cheaper and easier to buy the company back into public ownership.

Mr. O'Brien: The funds that I mentioned might be used for that purpose.
Let me tell the Minister that if we sincerely want to support the mining industry—as the Government declared on being elected in 1997—we can do that without subsidies from the taxpayer, by using money that has been generated in the mining industry. Now is the time to make an approach to the Treasury to ask to use some of the money that we accrued in the industry—money which I and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate contributed. That is one way in which we can save the industry and develop clean coal technology, which will see the industry through the next century.
I plead with the Minister to take those two points on board, because that would improve the miners' lot.

Ann Clwyd: Many of my hon. Friends have made the arguments that I wished to make. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on initiating the debate and on his continuing fight for our coal industry. He is second to none in his efforts on behalf of that industry.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) reminded me of my fight for the Tower colliery, in Cynon valley, during 1994. At that time, I advanced in the Chamber the very arguments that my hon. Friend made. I know how strongly he feels, as I felt strongly at that time.
In 1995, the miners of Tower colliery, the last deep mine in Wales, became owners of the pit. In the first year, they made pre-tax profits of £3.5 million. I can remember the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, arguing that there was no future for Tower colliery—that it was finished. He sent one of his Ministers to the Tea Room and said, "Tell the men to throw in the towel", and I answered, "Tell them yourself."
The miners of Tower did not throw in the towel. They launched their own bid, with their redundancy money, to buy the pit. Two hundred and twenty-eight miners each

put up £8,000 to buy that pit, and it re-opened on 2 January 1995. Those miner owners have set up a fully co-operative structure. They have an open management, with worker directors who are accountable to the work force, as well as one person, one vote decision making. Shares must be returned to the company by those who leave the pit, and they cannot be bought by outsiders. Such a scheme could be repeated elsewhere.
Tower colliery employs 400 people from the valleys of south Wales—still an area of high unemployment and deprivation. In my constituency, 12.6 per cent. of workers are still unemployed. The colliery offers well-paid jobs, and there is a spin-off of about £10 million a year to the economy of the Cynon valley. Therefore the industry is very important.
Tower has consistently invested in the future, with heavy financial costs in the development of the mine and the infrastructure. It would like to develop other parts of the mine, which would produce coal directly for Aberthaw power station, but that development is costly and, due to present uncertainties described by my hon. Friends, it is unable to go ahead. Tower pit pays more than £5 million annually to the state, in addition to the £8 million paid to the Government to buy the pit, and it is still paying back another £2 million. We should remember that the pit has a very important contribution to make to the economy of south Wales, especially the Cynon valley.
I urge my hon. Friends not to throw in the towel, but to keep on fighting. I also urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe to reply sympathetically to the strong case made for coal. There is a case for it, which should be answered by the Government. It was not answered by the previous Conservative Government, but I hope that this Government will show greater understanding and sympathy.
Finally, on a lighter note, the story of Tower has been put to music. There is an opera called "Tower", which opened in south Wales three weeks ago and is now touring Wales. It tells the story in music and song. It could come to England, but the Arts Council of England has turned down an appeal for a grant, saying that there is no interest in England. Anyone who heard my hon. Friends today would know that such an interest exists. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts that my constituency was twinned with Islington during the miners' strike, so there is an interest in Islington, in the north of England and in Scotland, and the Arts Council of England should change its mind?

Mr. Nick Gibb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing an important debate, and I welcome the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) to her place in her first key debate as the Minister with responsibility for energy at the Department of Trade and Industry.
There is no doubt that the coal industry has suffered enormously over the past 15 years. Economics and the environment were the principal reasons for pit closures in the 1990s, and now the driving forces are the environment and subsidies in Germany, Spain, France and Poland, which are almost certainly illegal.
It is particularly tragic that Ellington is to close at a time when alternative employment in manufacturing in the north-east is under threat from Government policies that have pushed manufacturing into recession, from which it is just emerging.
I have enormous sympathy for some of the more honest old Labour Members of Parliament, who fought the election on the expectation that the coal industry would be protected under a Labour Government. Labour raised expectations that the coal industry would be safe in its hands. The new Labour leadership must have known that that was not true, because in its manifesto the Labour party made it clear that it would fight global warming through a new target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2, emissions by 2010.
The Labour party in opposition gave miners and the coal industry the cosy reassurance that coal mining jobs would be safe, yet the Deputy Prime Minister has signed Britain up to achieving an even higher CO2 emission target than that demanded by Kyoto. This debate, therefore, is not just about coal or gas or electricity; it is about how the Government can marry the target to which they signed up with their implicit promises to the coal industry.
I refer the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on the coal industry, which states that
the Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets, together with the UK's 1997 commitment to a 20 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of CO2 by 2010 … represent a more dramatic increase in environmental pressures on coal than anything foreseen in 1993, and on a far tighter timescale.
The right hon. Lady's written answer to my question about European coal subsidies contained reassuring but unconvincing language, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the fact is that last year, according to RJB Mining, Germany, France and Spain subsidised their coal industries by £3.2 billion, a highly unfair and probably illegal subsidy. Perhaps that should be called the Midlothian question. It shows a huge gap between the new Labour message and the new Labour reality.
The biggest deceit of all is contained in the Government's White Paper on energy, which seeks to justify the gas moratorium on the grounds that it will protect the coal industry—a view, incidentally, that is not shared by many outside the Government. The Labour- dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated:
We do not believe that this moratorium on section 36 … consents for new power stations will assist the coal industry in the short run … we look to the Government to ensure that … the moratorium is lifted as soon as practicable.
The Government, whose Deputy Prime Minister had signed up to some challenging CO2 targets, found that some of his colleagues were worried about the effect that that would have on the coal industry. The Government decided that they must be seen to be doing something to appease those members, and accordingly embarked on a gas moratorium, despite the fact that they know and the whole world knows that it will do nothing to help the coal industry.
The Government claim in the White Paper that the dash for gas has been artificially encouraged by distortions in the electricity market and by inadequate competition in generation. The argument is that both of those factors have artificially raised the market price of electricity, thus encouraging new gas-fired power stations to be built.
No one questions the importance of the reforms to the electricity pool or of competition in electricity generation, but the idea that companies would invest millions of pounds without considering the future price of electricity is nonsense. It make a mockery of the reasoning behind the gas moratorium set out in the White Paper.
The moratorium is resulting in higher electricity prices than would otherwise be the case, and significantly higher CO2 emissions, and is leading to further downgrading of the competitiveness of British industry.
The next great deceit in the Government's arguments for the gas moratorium relates to the environment. Combined cycle gas turbine stations emit about half the level of CO2 emitted by a conventional power station, but because of the increased use of gas over the years and increased output from nuclear power, the CO2 emissions from electricity generation have already fallen below 1990 levels.
That is why the White Paper states that the Government
would expect to see a decline in CO2 emissions from the power generation sector over the period covered by the Kyoto Protocol",
even on scenarios that retain the gas moratorium in the years 2008 to 2012. Therein lies the deception. From 2010, if not earlier, as was pointed out by other hon. Members, the UK will have to begin to decommission Magnox nuclear power stations.
Thus the Government's environmental policy is geared solely to meeting the Kyoto target of 2008 to 2012. The fact that in the years after 2012 the CO2 emissions are likely to rise is, as far as the Government are concerned, irrelevant. In other words, the Government are living for the short term and taking no steps to deal with the position after 2012.
The third great deception in the Government's argument behind the gas moratorium involves security of supply. Britain has total remaining gas reserves which at current production rates will last between 23 and 35 years. That is stated in appendix C of the Government's White Paper on energy. That is why the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry concluded:
There are no reasons on grounds of security of supply, or in terms of confidence in long-term availability, to resist the growing use of gas.
That is the final deceit. The gas moratorium will not protect the coal industry, its purpose is not to protect hapless companies from mistakenly building gas-fired power stations in response to short-term artificial prices, and it will not help with the security of electricity supply. However, the gas moratorium will add to the price of electricity and will lead to higher CO2 emissions than would otherwise be the case. For those reasons, we believe that the gas moratorium should end.
The difficulties faced by the British coal industry are real and have been exacerbated by the Deputy Prime Minister and by illegal European subsidies. The real concerns and real difficulties should be addressed by the Government through real policies and real remedies, not through an artificial policy that will do nothing to help, but which will damage British industry and the environment.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley,


West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. He is a great advocate for the coal industry and the people who work in it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has never lost sight of the fact that it is the people in the industry who suffer as a consequence of decline in that industry. He mentioned my empathy with the industry—I have great empathy with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) asked me to listen sympathetically to the debate. I assure the House that I have listened sympathetically. I am also conscious that a substantial number of my hon. Friends have not been successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the pressure of time. I undertake to meet them as soon as possible in a setting that will allow them the time to make the points that they wish to make. I am happy to do that at any time.
I have listened carefully to the considered points that my hon. Friends have made, but as I have only 10 minutes to reply, I shall write to them with detailed responses to the points that I am unable to answer now. I want to provide as much access as possible to Members who represent mining communities. These are challenging times, and there are challenging times ahead. We shall not walk away from our mining communities. Given my history, I would not be following my conscience if I walked away from the mining communities that sent me here. Indeed, on a lighter note, I am one of the few women honorary members of the National Union of Mineworkers. I was invited to join by the late Michael McGahey, who was born and brought up in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) welcomed me to the Front Bench very graciously, and I thank him for that, but I am not going to take any lectures from a Tory on what should happen to the coal industry. The gall of some people who come to the House and posture about it angers me, so I shall draw attention to what happened under the previous Government.
In 1980, slightly more than 230,000 men were employed in the coal mining industry; by 1997, the figure had fallen to 12,600. Every one of us who comes from a mining community knows the cost of that. We know the suffering that was caused because of the politically driven vendetta against those communities. More importantly, the Government have to deal with the legacy of the Conservative Government's incompetence. We are facing up to the responsibility that we have as a Government for the toll taken on miners' health by the coal industry and, by reducing the distortions that were forcing coal out of the electricity market, we are dealing with the legacy that the previous Administration left the coal industry 
Hon. Members have referred to the stricter gas consents policy. I shall take up a point made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who wants the moratorium on that policy to be lifted. It has been painful to refuse a lot of those power station applications, because some of my hon. Friends have told me that they want gas-fired power stations to meet particular needs in their constituencies. However, because we recognise that the coal industry must be given a level playing field, we have been prepared to act. We must have security and diversity of supply. We have turned down 4 GW of gas-fired

generation, which is equivalent to 10 million tonnes of coal—roughly half the output of RJB Mining. If that is not helping the coal industry, I do not know what is.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No, I am not taking interventions from the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that he is on his feet, because I have not said the magic word "Europe". That usually brings him out of his box.
We have introduced a programme of radical and far-reaching reform aimed at ensuring that the coal industry has a secure future, but I shall not delude anyone—there are still difficult days ahead. I was surprised by the tone adopted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) following the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had about Ellington with the affected constituents. We made it clear that we would examine every possible legal means of assisting the coal industry.
Questions were raised about the investment that miners have made and the profitability that they have achieved—that point was made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I have to point out that RJB amassed profits adding up to £550 million from 1995 to 1998. In the first six months of this year, it had declared profits of £4 million, which it distributed in dividends. Pressure should not be put on the Government to pick up the costs when the private sector makes such profits. It is important to bear that in mind. I can assure the miners of this country that we will do everything to ensure that our energy markets support the future of the coal industry.
A number of my hon. Friends referred to coal pits that have a strong future, and much has been said about subsidised and unfairly priced coal imports. I appreciate the points that have been made, and the Government have acted on unfair subsidies. A number of hon. Members referred to Polish coal. A lot of people have expressed to us their concerns about dumping. I give a commitment that I shall seek to meet my Polish opposite number as soon as possible to raise that matter.
My hon. Friends asked for specific aid for the coal industry and referred to the European energy markets. Over the past few years, we have fought hard for liberalisation of those markets, and I recognise the difficulties caused by the one-way traffic of electricity from France. I have met my opposite number—indeed, I addressed a seminar in the Assemblée Nationale specifically on that issue—and shall do so again next week, and I have approached the European Commission to make sure that there is true liberalisation of energy markets in France. My hon. Friends raised the issue of the French interconnector, of which we are very much aware. The matter is covered by treaty, but, notwithstanding that, we are anxious for progress to be made.
As we said in the White Paper in response to the industry, we seek to create a climate of fairness, not favours. That is what we have delivered and what we shall continue to deliver, but we have to be realistic. Investment in the UK coal industry is at a historically low level. Indeed, the main proprietor, RJB, is investing in Australia rather than the UK, which is an important signal that mines run out of economic resources. Pits also face geological challenges to which we must respond. We must


have mechanisms to help miners to achieve a secure future whenever economics and geology work against them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone asked me about victimised miners. The Government are very concerned about that issue, and I hope to be able to make an announcement soon about the means whereby we shall deal with their problems. I hope to set up a group that will look into those cases following the consultation that is to take place.

Ms Joan Walley: My right hon. Friend will be aware of all the work that is being done in north Staffordshire on behalf of the victimised sacked miners, but is she aware that tremendous concern still exists? We want a test centre to assess cases of vibration white finger. Will she look into that issue urgently?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend has fought a good campaign, and she makes a sound point. Until now, we have had some difficulty over the availability of technicians who work on that condition. A strong case relating to it has been made for her area and, in the new year, I hope to be able to say something that she will find encouraging.
I am conscious that the industry has contributed a huge amount to our economy, and it has a future. The stricter gas consents policy is creating a more level playing field for the coal industry, but it cannot exist indefinitely. We have said that, once the pool reforms are in place, the moratorium will have to be lifted, but I say to the mining communities, from the bottom of my heart, that we will not turn our back on them. My hon. Friends know of my commitment to the industry. My door is always open, and we shall look seriously at every point that has been raised today with a view to finding a means whereby we can secure the future for the industry.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

11 am

Dr. Evan Harris: I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce this debate, which I understand will be the last one-and-a-half-hour Back-Bench debate to take place in the Chamber before we begin holding debates in Westminster Hall in the new Session. There can be no more important issue for many Back Benchers than the workings of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the implications of its workings for rationing in the health service.
I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is to respond. When I was a Liberal Democrat health spokesman, I spent many long hours discussing this and other issues with him, during the Committee and Report stages of the Health Bill, and in a Statutory Instrument Committee considering the orders setting up NICE. I am pleased that we shall be able to continue those discussions today.
Let me declare some interests. I am a fellow-elect of the Industry and Parliament Trust, which was established to give parliamentarians such as myself, who have no private-sector experience, experience of industry. My fellowship is with Glaxo Wellcome, with which—among other pharmaceutical companies—I have discussed the debate. I also went on a three-day study trip to an oncological conference in the United States, along with NHS clinicians and purchasers. The travel, which took place earlier this year, was funded by the pharmaceutical company Rhone-Poulenc Rorer.
Part of the subject of this debate is rationing, a word that the Government do not like using. Perhaps if I now define what I understand by it, we can talk in approximately the same terms, even if the Government do not accept my definition. Rationing of health care is caused by a mismatch between demand, or need, and the provision of services for which resources allow—and, indeed, the efficiency with which those services can be provided. When we talk of rationing in this context, we do not mean the system that operated during the war. We do not mean that everyone in the country receives a set ration of treatment that, once exhausted, cannot be used any more.
The Government have attempted to define away the problem by claiming that the Liberal Democrats—and, following a Damascene conversion in this Parliament, the Conservatives—are referring to rationing in that other sense, and that therefore it does not exist. When we speak of rationing, we mean that sometimes some treatments are not available when they would benefit patients or populations, because there simply are not the resources to provide all those treatments on the NHS.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: I will in a moment.
Liberal Democrats believe that this kind of rationing is inevitable. To say that there cannot be rationing in any public-health sector is like saying that the earth is flat. There will always be pressures on the health service, and decisions will have to be made. Our point is that the existence of rationing should be recognised by the


population and admitted by the Government, so that the population can debate whether it wants to vote for more resources to reduce—not obliterate—the rationing that now exists. Clearly, more resources mean that more treatments would be affordable.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) now does not wish to intervene. Presumably I have answered his question.
The Government have a responsibility to conduct a public debate about rationing. Liberal Democrats would like nothing more than a discussion—at election times generally, but in particular at the next election, as no such discussion was held at the last election—about whether we should be putting significantly more money into the health service. Should we put in more—yea, if I may speak in biblical terms, even more than the Government say that they are putting in and will put in, in real terms—so that we can reduce the amount of rationing to the levels found in countries that spend a significantly higher proportion of their gross domestic product on health services generally, and the public-health sector in particular?

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I tease the hon. Gentleman slightly? When I checked the Liberal Democrat manifesto yesterday, I found that it identified not one penny of extra funds for medicines. There was a substantial list of items of additional spending on the health service, fully costed—to be paid for by the closing of a loophole involving national insurance contributions—but there was not a penny extra for drugs. As the Liberal Democrats also proposed to freeze prescription charges, there might have been even less money for drugs had they won the election.

Dr. Harris: There are two fallacies in that argument. The first is that the Liberal Democrats proposed to put in less money than Labour. We were clear about the fact that those were specific commitments over and above the Conservatives' spending plans, which also included an uplifting for inflation that was not included in the Government's calculations.
The hon. Gentleman's primary error, however, is that it is not, currently, for politicians to say, "This money is ring fenced for drugs." I shall be interested to see whether the Minister backs up his hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) by suggesting that the money from prescription charges is in a ring-fenced budget for spending on drugs, or that the Government allocate any funds specifically for that purpose. I think that we and the Government agree that health service spending in that sense should take place in a primary and secondary care setting, and that a clinical judgment should be made about whether to spend money on drugs, bed stay, operative intervention, aids or counselling. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments do not mean that he is in a drug-obsessed frame of mind.
As I have said, we need to hold a public debate on whether to spend more on the health service—the NHS, rather than private care. We need an honest debate about whether there should be tax cuts or more public spending. If the Conservative party—or the other Conservative party, in this context, the Labour party—wins that fair

debate and wins an election on that basis, our position will clearly be more difficult to sustain, although we will still hold and express our present views. The point is that such a debate never took place at the last election. The Government said, "We will save the NHS, there is and will be no rationing, and well-off people can have tax cuts."
In yesterday's pre-Budget statement, a huge opportunity was missed to invest even more in the health service at a time when in my county, Oxfordshire, community hospitals are threatened with closure. We have been waiting for a decision from the Government for more than a year. Those hospitals are closing not because the beds are in the wrong place, or because no one needs them; they are closing because the community trust is short of £1.5 million. The closure proposal is a financial proposal, and, three years into their regime, the Government must take responsibility either by saying that they were wrong, or by saying that there will be health service cuts because they do not spend enough.
The Government set up NICE following a discussion paper called "Faster Access to Modern Treatment". That follows the trend of giving Government papers titles whose contents belie them: another example is an education paper called "Fair Funding", which has prompted more humour than any other such title that I have encountered. In their paper, the Government said that the big geographical variations in the provision of treatments or drugs were unacceptable. We agree wholeheartedly; indeed, we would go further, and point out that many such unacceptable variations—postcode prescribing—are a function of the fact that there is rationing in the health service due to underfunding.
Some health authorities may well fund proper treatment for multiple sclerosis sufferers with beta interferon, but not fund medium-secure mental health beds. Other authorities may choose to spend what little they have on the provision of better mental health beds, but cut their drug budget for neurological disease. There is a patchwork of such inequalities throughout the country. The Government must recognise that the underlying cause is pressure on the health service budget. They do not have to take the blame, but they should at least recognise the fact.
NICE was set up to deal with that problem, but it cannot do so unless it deals with the underlying problem of shortage of resources in the health service and the unacceptable rationing of useful treatments. It was set up first to examine the clinical effectiveness of drugs, and then to examine their cost effectiveness. There was widespread support, including from me. We believed that, if that was as far as NICE went, giving its advice to the Government based on those two criteria, with certain concerns, that would be good. It would help to even out variations, and encourage clinicians to use new treatments more quickly and, just as important, to stop using old treatments earlier that were reckoned to be no good.
We had concerns on a number of things. Would NICE look just at new drugs, and not at old drugs? There were concerns that that would affect investment in research and patients' access to modern treatments. There has to be a balance between looking at old treatments, finding that those are not effective and releasing resources for their use, and looking at new treatments that the Government are interested in.
Would clinical effectiveness work just repeat what the licensing authorities had done based on phase-three clinical trials, which show whether a treatment works, or would some new measure of effectiveness—which the Government would not specify—have to be met? I fear that some of those concerns have proved to be correct.
The other concerns centred around cost-effectiveness. What measurements would NICE, at the Government's behest, use to measure cost-effectiveness? Clearly, relative cost-effectiveness of a new treatment as against an existing treatment for the same problem is reasonable. There is no way that the health service should pay for treatment A if it is more expensive, but no more effective than existing treatment B, so there is a clear role for NICE to issue some clear guidelines about relative cost-effectiveness.
Overall cost-effectiveness is much more difficult to get to grips with. It is harder to measure cost-effectiveness of treatments that are not curative. There is much debate about whether quality-adjusted life years are a fair way of measuring that, or in fact discriminate against the elderly, something that the Government should be concerned about, given this week's news about the prevalence of age discrimination in the NHS. There is concern about whether there is enough data in this country, or even in other countries where health economics are more advanced, to look at cost-effectiveness in very clear and explicit terms.
Another concern is that the Government would ask for data from the pharmaceutical industry on new drugs under new rules since the setting up of NICE, where the trials for licensing purposes of the drug had been started years ago and it was far too late for a pharmaceutical company to redesign its international trials to meet the demands.
Those were genuine concerns, which I hope the Minister accepts, but if they could be dealt with and were not too severe, people would say that the gain of ironing out unacceptable variation would be worth it. However, time and again, we have pressed the Government to say whether affordability would be a criterion on which NICE would judge matters. One would not imagine it from looking at the order setting up NICE, which was laid before Parliament in February 1999 and which we debated in Standing Committee following a call for such a debate by the Opposition. Article 3 says in terms of the functions of the institute:
Subject to and in accordance with such directions as the Secretary of State may give (b), the Institute shall perform such functions in connection with the promotion of clinical excellence in the health service as the Secretary of State may direct.
There is no way I understand clinical excellence to relate to issues—important issues—of affordability. They are two different things. I think that it is argued uniformly in the NHS that affordability is a matter for the Government to decide. The Government set the budget. They make announcements saying that they are not spending this money on the health service, but spending it on something else, or that they are spending so much on the health service, even though it may be counted several times, as the Government tend to do.

Dr. Palmer: Before my intervention, I should mention that I advise Novartis; it could conceivably be relevant.
The hon. Gentleman appears to say that it is reasonable for NICE to compare the cost-effectiveness of one treatment against another to guide local health authorities,

primary care groups and so on, but that NICE should not look at the cost-effectiveness of treatments if there is no comparable treatment. I do not quite see why he makes that prime distinction, especially as he admits that what he calls rationing—what I would call prioritisation—is inevitable in any health care system. I would have thought that primary care trusts and others would welcome guidance on that point.

Dr. Harris: There are two points there. The hon. Gentleman talks about prioritisation. That is a bit of a spin statement in itself because prioritisation implies "posteriorisation." No one ever talks of the procedures that we are going to posteriorise—that we are not going to fund when we fund specific treatments that we wish to prioritise. I think that he will accept that it is important that we recognise that the patients at the sharp end who get the posteriorised non-treatment do not see the prioritisation—they just see that the treatment is not available to them.
The point I am making is that it is difficult to look at cost-effectiveness when there is no existing treatment. For example, beta interferon is the only treatment that interferes with the disease process in multiple sclerosis and can, for certain patients, give benefits, so comparing that with something else is difficult. The cost of that is £10,000 per year, which is deemed to be too much by health authorities, yet the annual cost of dialysing a 30-year-old to keep that person alive is £30,000. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should divert all funds from dialysis, which is perhaps the most expensive treatment in terms of life years saved, to things that currently are not funded per life year saved and where the amount is lower; for example, Riluzole for motor neurone disease, or beta interferon for multiple sclerosis.
Some of the new taxane drugs for chemotherapy do not cure. The argument is about their indications in metastatic cancer, which is effectively incurable, and whether they should be first line. There is strong evidence—it is used overseas for the purpose—that first-line treatment with taxane can add years to life at a cost of about £10,000 per year. Again, that is not funded by some health authorities. The question is: if we ask health authorities all to fund it within the same cash envelope, what will they not fund? That choice has to be recognised.
If the things that the health authorities then do not fund are not acceptable to the electorate, the electorate might support a party that calls for higher funding, the things that are not funded being less unacceptable. If they think that, in the round, it is acceptable—that degree of rationing is the level that they want and they want their tax cuts—then we can have that argument. That is all that I call for.
That is not an issue on which the Government should hide behind NICE. They should start a debate on it. We have said on at least 15 occasions in debate that we will not oppose the Government if we have a public conference to debate those issues outside the party political arena, so that we can have a proper debate.
In July 1998, the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Health, answered an oral question from me on the issue. He said in response to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard):
we get lots of advice from economists and others who say that we need to bear down on the NHS drugs bill, as though drugs were a bad thing, which is a naive assumption. If drugs mean easier, better


and quicker treatment for the patient instead of going to hospital, that is a good thing and if it means growth in the NHS drugs bill, we should welcome it … we want a more rigorous assessment of what is cost effective and clinically effective, particularly when drugs come on to the market."—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 158.]
Those were all welcome comments, but there was no mention of affordability, particularly in all the talk about the cost of new drugs and the drugs bill—no mention that affordability would be an issue.
When Professor Michael Rawlins took on the job, he was clearly under the impression that he would not be asked to talk about the affordability of treatments. In answer to a question in the Select Committee on Health from the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), he said:
Yes, but I am also conscious that NICE does not have a responsibility for the total allocation of financial resources with the National Health Service. NICE ultimately has to temper its advice in relationship to the people's elected representatives in Parliament and in Government.
It is clear that his view was that affordability is an issue for elected politicians. He says:
Absolutely. I have no doubt at all that where NICE believes that a new technology or new guideline, even if it is expensive, has a real health gain it will be an advocate with the Department. like there has not been before, it will be robust, it will be given by clinicians and if necessary we will, as it were, bully the Department into seeing things our way.
It will be quite clear that we regard treatment: with Taxol"—
I think that that was being used as a hypothetical example—
in ovarian cancer as clinically effective and the most clinically effective agent around.
Immediately, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked Professor Sir Michael Rawlins to confirm that that was the separation in roles that he envisaged between the national institute and Ministers, and he replied "exactly". Liberal Democrat Members would like that separation to be maintained.
In Standing Committee, and during consideration of the Health Act 1999, the Minister made it quite clear that the national institute should not use an affordability criterion. On 6 August 1999, the Government issued a press release describing NICE's national programme, but made no mention of an affordability criterion. In the first note for editors, it states:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will give clinical guidance to the NHS in England and Wales including guidance on the clinical and cost effectiveness of new and existing clinical interventions. Proposals for NICE were first set out in the White Paper The New NHS: Modern and Dependable and further elaborated in a consultation paper A First Class service".
In pages and pages, that press release mentions various treatments and the unacceptability of postcode prescribing, but it makes not one mention of affordability. That was peculiar.
On 6 August—the day that all that spin on NICE's programme was issued, and in the depths of the recess—an order was introduced, to insert in article 3, from which I quoted a moment ago, after the words "promotion of clinical excellence" the words
and of the effective use of available resources".
That was a huge change. Liberal Democrat Members argue not only against that change in policy, but against the surreptitious way in which it was made. We also asked the Minister to appear before a Standing Committee to justify the change and the way in which it was made.
Subsequently, there has been some progress, with the national institute's first evaluation of a drug—the anti-flu drug Relenza. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the institute's first decision has confirmed all the fears expressed over many months by United Kingdom pharmaceutical companies that the national institute would effectively create a fourth, affordability hurdle for new medicines.
I do not want to deal with the details of the Relenza case—although I should be more than happy to do so if the Minister wishes to—but there were several problems with the decision. The first one is that the drug has been licensed and is effective in ameliorating the symptoms of flue and in shortening its course by, on average, one and a half days. I would like to have a drug that, for £24, would save me one and a half days off work because of flu, and think that, in principle, the health service should be prepared to buy such a drug. Moreover, the drug would probably be cost effective in work lost, even if there was no evidence that it saves lives.
NICE seems to be saying that, on the basis of affordability, it and the health service would not be interested in flu as a disease until there was a drug that is proved to save lives among the elderly. However, that is a separate issue.

Mr. Paul Marsden: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a £5 flu vaccination is more cost effective than a £24 five-day course of Relenza?

Dr. Harris: I know that we cannot have a direct exchange now, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows the effectiveness of the flu vaccination—is it 100 per cent? It is 30 per cent. Therefore, even with universal flu vaccination—currently, only risk groups are receiving it—effectiveness would be only 30 per cent. Other treatments, such as Amantadine, are available in the NHS for some strains of flu. Therefore, a new principle has not been established that the NHS is not interested in flu.
When we talk about rationing NHS treatments, or the unavailability of treatments on the NHS, we are not saying that no one in the United Kingdom will receive those treatments, but that the treatments will not be available to poor people. The rich and others who can afford the treatments will be able to receive Viagra, Relenza and other treatments, such as new chemotherapy, that are not available from health authorities.
Yesterday, the Daily Mail made it clear that some doctors—including some oncologists to whom I have spoken—tell their wealthier patients that they cannot provide the drug on the NHS, but that they would prescribe it if they visited as a private patient. Doctors are not funded to provide some of the new chemotherapeutic agents to everyone. I think that that is immoral, and that the Government have to recognise that NHS rationing entails depriving treatments to poor people.

Dr. Ladyman: NICE's judgment on Relenza was only an interim one, based on current evidence, and was based not on the treatment's cost, but on the difficulty of ensuring that patients present at the right time to ensure that the treatment is effective. Other than Glaxo,


Relenza's manufacturer, pharmaceutical companies—at least the ones that I have spoken to—think that NICE got the decision right.

Dr. Harris: I have not heard that view expressed before by the industry, but shall deal with that later.
Other treatments may be affected by the affordability criterion, but are seen by Ministers and Labour Members as more desirable—and less as low-hanging fruit—than flu treatments. If NICE said that, on the basis of affordability, beta interferon should not be prescribed or that taxanes should not be used as a first-line treatment, I would bet that Labour Members would find it much more difficult to dismiss Relenza as simply a flu treatment and to insist on vaccination.
In "Faster Access to Modern Treatment", we were promised transitional arrangements for companies. The paper stated:
Transitional arrangements will be needed over the next few years, in particular for medicines, since any clinical research needed to satisfy the licensing requirements will already be underway. Under these circumstances it would be unreasonable to require information which was not obtainable from the research already underway, since that would imply new research and might delay, perhaps by several years, the launch of the product. We believe that this would be unrealistic for many companies, especially those with international markets.
It would be incredibly unfair if a company spent up to 12 years on developing a drug—including years in clinical trials, to reach phase 3—but the Government subsequently said, "You should have got this data on cost effectiveness". The transitional arrangements were therefore crucial. However, those arrangements were ignored in the Relenza decision—they were not heeded.
A drug that has been judged to be clinically effective should be innocent until proven guilty. Particularly in the transitional phase, drug companies—which invest hugely in the United Kingdom—should be treated fairly and should not be asked, after the fact, to provide cost-effectiveness data.
I think that Ministers will find that a consequence of decisions based on affordability—such as the one on Relenza, but also future ones—is that products are not launched first in Britain. Britain is an important market, and other countries watch to see what we do. There has been grave concern in the pharmaceutical industry that decisions made by the national institute will be emulated by other countries.
Drugs may also not be launched early in Britain. Therefore, British patients may have slower, rather than faster access to modern treatment. It is well recognised that, in NHS clinical trials, some data even on clinical effectiveness, but especially on cost effectiveness, are extremely difficult to obtain and may be obtained only after the drug is in use in the NHS. The Government have to allow drugs to be used in the NHS. If they do not allow them to be used on the basis of affordability, Ministers should clearly say that and not seek to hide behind NICE.
I fear that clinical trials will not be performed in the United Kingdom, as companies will not plan an early launch here for the treatments. Currently, many new treatments in my health authority are being provided cheaply in ethical clinical trials.
The Government have to recognise that sneaking in the affordability criterion, not applying the transitional arrangements, and giving responsibility for affordability

decisions to a non-elected body will damage not only investment by the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom, but NHS patients' access to modern treatments. When we talk about the access of NHS patients, in these senses we are often talking about elderly and poor patients. That policy undermines everything that the Government say about the need to tackle health inequality.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing it. I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman and must confess that we have spent many a night together. Before the media start to ring my wife, I hasten to add that that was during the long debates in the Standing Committee that considered the Health Bill.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the ministerial team for making the National Institute for Clinical Excellence a reality. No more of the rhetoric or excuses for unfair treatment, no more the spiral of decline of our much-loved national health service, and no more one patient receiving a treatment and another being declined—in short, no more Tory Government.
Instead, we have a national institute that provides access to a single source of quality information for health professionals. It assists them to make complex decisions about patient care and ends the current state of confusion over treatment. Among other things, NICE' s programme of work includes beta interferon for multiple sclerosis, taxanes for ovarian and breast cancer and inhalers for childhood asthma. Patients will receive greater consistency in the availability and quality of NHS services. NICE guidance covers all aspects of management of a condition, from self-care to care by the family doctor, the hospital and specialist services.
First, on the constant and rather sad argument that comes from the Tories and Liberal Democrats, who mention the "R" word rationing. In spite of what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, they try to paint a picture of people holding ration books, counting their coupons, terrified of not being treated when those run out. They fear they will be told, "Sorry, Madam, we can't prescribe any more painkillers because you've exceeded your quota. Come back next year when your ration starts again", or, "No, Sir, we can't admit you. You've already been here twice this year. I'm afraid your ration is two visits a year." The picture painted by the Opposition would be patently daft, except that it is blatant scaremongering, which frightens people, especially the elderly.
The NHS has always set priorities for treatment and worked within cash limits. The difference between this Government and previous Tory Governments is that Labour is investing £21 billion more over three years in the NHS. Just as importantly, it believes in the concept of the national health service, unlike the Tories.
NICE helps the health professionals to make judgments on treatments with thoroughly researched information—informed judgments instead of the patchwork quilt of best guesses of the previous Tory Government. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond),


who is not present—I note the acres of green space on the Tory Benches today—said on 14 June:
For the record, there was rationing within the NHS during the period of the previous Conservative Government. We do not deny it, and have not sought to deny it."—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 88.]
There we have it, the Tories are proud of their policy of denying treatment to patients through the chronic underfunding and unfairness of the internal market.
We must put an end to the situation in which one health authority supports a treatment, but another does not because then the question of who is right and who is wrong arises. NICE is about rational thinking, not rationing treatment.
As usual, the Liberal Democrats struggle to find a single consistent argument. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said in 1998:
It is difficult to see how we can secure the new evidence … for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence".—[Official Report, 9 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 1315.]
I took that to mean that there was no need for NICE. However, on 10 March this year, he said:
NICE is necessary to iron out inequalities in health—I accept the Government's thinking on that".
That was only column 10. By column 12, he said that he could give only,
half a cheer for the establishment of NICE".—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 10 March 1999; c. 10-12.]
Up and down, round and round—that is the Liberal Democrat policy. However, it is not the Tory's policy. They are clear cut—no ambiguity, no praise for the national institute. Speaking for the Tories, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said on 10 March:
This NICE will be nasty"—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 10 March 1999; c. 3.]—
a nice sound bite.
Tory solutions lie in the private sector. They want to run down the national health service and force more and more people to take out private health insurance. That is rationing health care. Those who can afford private insurance get a limited health care, those who cannot have to watch a Tory NHS being reduced to ruins.
Perhaps the Tories would like this country to introduce a similar health care system to that in Germany. German workers have to sign up to an insurance company. Each worker pays 6.5 per cent. of gross pay and the employer has to match that. How about the Belgian system of patients paying up to 25 per cent. of the cost of their treatment? I am sure that the British people and British businesses would be interested in the Tory pledge to inflict a new health tax rise on the nation.
Private health care has an important role to play for some people who can afford it, but it cannot deliver the depth and quality of care that the NHS and all its staff deliver every day. NICE is an important step forward. It has been welcomed by 37 community health councils and by royal colleges. Together with other initiatives such as the modernisation programme for accident and emergency departments, NHS Direct and the largest hospital building programme in history, this Government are delivering a

modern health care system for the 21st century. I asked for local views in my constituency. The Royal Shrewsbury hospital said:
NICE will promote clinical and cost effectiveness through guidance and audit, to support our frontline staff.
Shrewsbury health authority said of NICE that it welcomed
its establishment and look forward to the role it will play. The NHS has long needed such an organisation which is able to evaluate current and new treatments including drugs … It will certainly prove extremely valuable to Shropshire … and is warmly welcomed by the Authority.
Australia, Finland and the Netherlands have set up similar organisations. It seems that only Tory politicians claim to know better than clinicians which treatments are best.
The Government and the Secretary of State for Health are committed to improving cancer care with their pledge to cut deaths among those under 75 by one fifth at least in the next 10 years. NICE is appraising taxanes for ovarian and breast cancer and I understand that it will provide definitive advice next year on their clinical and cost effectiveness. Taxanes, including Taxotere, are important treatments in cancer care. I hope that NICE will support their use—even Greece uses more Taxotere treatments than this country—but that is my opinion. That is the important point. We need expert, trusted advice from NICE. In general, we need more cancer drugs with proven track records. It is up to NICE to recommend which drugs are cost effective and clinically effective.
In summary, I support the national institute wholeheartedly. It will raise the quality of care in the NHS. It empowers clinicians and commissioners to make informed decisions on best advice. Patients will receive greater consistency in the availability and quality of NHS services. The Liberal Democrats offer half a cheer and the Tories offer health care in chaos. It is this Labour Government, through NICE's advice and by investing in staff, technology and new treatments, who are to deliver the quality health care that we need in the NHS for the 21st century.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this important debate. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, particularly with Wyeth, the firm involved in the meningitis C vaccine campaign.
NICE's recent announcement on Relenza will have greater long-term implications for science in the NHS and for the pharmaceutical industry than the Government may yet realise. I have no financial relationship with Glaxo Wellcome, but I am indebted to Sir Richard Sykes because five years ago we launched a campaign to win for Britain the European Medicines Evaluation Agency. This is not the time to set out why our pharmaceutical industry is such a leader among the creative industries. We are low prescribers per head, and overwhelmingly the industry invests in research in Britain and uses this country as a springboard for exports. It would be dangerous to put the long-standing partnership between the industry and the NHS in jeopardy.
When we launched the campaign for the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, it was to be a magnet for inward investment. Britain was advanced as a location for


the agency because of our record for integrity and probity and our commanding position in pharmaceutical research, with four out of the top 10 medicines prescribed having been discovered in the UK.
Above all, our drug regulation agency, the Medicines Control Agency, deals with more drug applications more quickly than any other European licensing agency. A Department of Health press release of 29 October 1993 said:
London offers precisely the right conditions for the Agency: the UK's record for probity, integrity and swiftness in medicines regulation is second to none. The EMEA will be crucial to the development of safe and innovatory medicines for all EC citizens.
That success was followed by a major campaign entitled "Prescribe UK", which involved the pharmaceutical industries, led by Sir Richard Sykes, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Invest in Britain Bureau. It was an attempt to encourage more Japanese, American and other pharmaceutical companies to invest in Britain. The Government declare themselves to be champions of the pharmaceutical industry and to want to promote inward investment. It is a shame that there is no representative here today from the Department of Trade and Industry or the other Departments which, in the age of so-called joined-up government, should be watching the situation carefully.
If a product has been licensed by the Medicines Control Agency or the EMEA, it has been approved for safety, quality and efficacy. The message that has gone to the industry from the announcements on Relenza is that there is a mysterious new delaying tactic that will prevent new products from reaching the market. The industry has just faced a 4.5 per cent. price cut and is often sceptical about the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. I support the PPRS, with all its difficulties. However, the Minister should be aware of what is being said in the industry, particularly by those from overseas, about the new, unaccountable way of delaying new products reaching the market.
I was prompted to speak today partly by the concern expressed by the industry and the real danger of the withdrawal of inward investment. I know, for example, what major pharmaceutical inward investment means to people in Thanet, in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is essential that the Government understand the message that is being taken from the announcement on Relenza. However, the main factor that has prompted me to speak is the growing concern in the scientific community, particularly among those whom I most respected when I was Secretary of State for Health. They have no political partisan commitment. They work in the health service because they are fascinated by medical research and they argue that the contribution of the industry to science in the NHS has been formidable.
The Government do not have a proud track record. The first thing that they did in their first year was cut the NHS research budget. Research is all too easily too low a priority. My concern is that the implications of what has been happening at NICE may threaten not only a successful industry but, even more important, the nature of research in the NHS.
It is fashionable for politicians on both sides to condemn postcode prescribing. It was an attempt to allow different health authorities to set their own priorities and make different decisions. That allows diversity, which,

when different areas are compared, becomes a springboard for innovation. It is hard to explain and to justify, but the effect was to create diversity. It is as old as the NHS.

Mr. James Gray: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not necessarily agreeing with what she says about postcode prescribing. I was not here earlier in the debate, but I know that we have talked about beta interferon. Does she agree that the situation is a terrible tragedy for constituents such as mine, who could be prescribed beta interferon if they lived in Bath or Oxford, but not in Wiltshire?

Mrs. Bottomley: All Members of Parliament have been affected by the campaign on beta interferon, and sufferers of multiple sclerosis feel understandably anxious and alarmed about the availability of new products and the best products for their condition.
The problem is that NICE is seeking to make premature decisions. It is well established that many new technologies or drugs end up being used for conditions and in circumstances that were not previously anticipated. The danger is that NICE will clamp down on innovation too soon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made clear, there is mounting anxiety that new products are not being made available. We have first-class people working in a second-class service. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) spoke euphorically about changes in the health service. I ask him to come to west Surrey, which has not had a ministerial visit in two and a half years. The news is very bad, and there has never been a time of greater despair and concern about the ability to provide treatment and care for a range of patient needs.
My concern is to promote evidence-based medicine. I support the concept of NICE. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that forcing the issue of cost-effectiveness and affordability onto NICE at the last minute, in a way that the distinguished Professor Michael Rawlins initially denied, will give the institute a task that will make it increasingly incredible. I ask the Minister to meet leaders in medical research in the NHS in an open-minded way and to talk more widely with people in the industry before a good idea turns out to be deplorably destructive to medical research, to science and to an extremely successful British industry.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I seldom congratulate the previous Government on anything, but, picking up on the comments of the right hon. Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I congratulate them on her successful campaign to win the European Medicines Evaluation Agency for the United Kingdom. In many ways, the agency was given to the United Kingdom as a second prize, because we did not get the European Bank. In the long term, it may well turn out to be the first prize and will probably make more money for the United Kingdom, one way or another, than the European Bank would have done. To that extent, I agree with the right hon. Lady.
However, when the right hon. Lady talks about prescribing guidelines and the way in which the NHS decides which drugs to buy, she forgets that the NHS is


not the Government or the marketplace—it is only a purchaser. In the United States, where there is a private marketplace, the equivalent to the NHS is the health management organisation with which one's insurer happens to be tied up. The United States may not have a National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but I bet my life that each health management organisation has an internal group that makes decisions about prescribing guidelines and drug purchase. For it, cost and cost-effectiveness are not tangential but direct matters. It must decide whether the health management organisation will prescribe a particular drug in a particular way.
The health service must have something equivalent to that and, in setting up NICE, the Government have taken a logical step which they are perfectly entitled to take. With some refinements and improvements it will have nothing like the impact on the United Kingdom's pharmaceutical industry that the right hon. Lady fears.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate. I agree with a number of points that he made, but I cannot let his speech go without noting once again, as I did in my intervention, that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto contains not a word about medicines. I have read it thoroughly, and if the hon. Gentleman has forgotten what is in it I shall gladly give him my copy. It contains not one extra penny for the drugs budget.
The hon. Gentleman says that prescription charges are not ring-fenced for the drugs budget, and he is right. They were in the supplementary costings document that went with the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Of the £570 million extra for the NHS this year identified in that manifesto, £200 million was to go to the Treasury to freeze the cost of prescription charges, and only £370 million was additional money for the NHS and was identified for hospitals, an additional carers allowance and dentistry. There was not a penny extra for drugs. Had the hon. Gentleman been the Minister replying to today's debate, he would have been trying to justify a Liberal Democratic Government's plans for limiting the availability of drugs on a smaller budget than the Government have currently made available. Liberal Democrats need to be a little more honest about that.
There is a serious debate. Liberal Democrats talk about rationing and the Government talk about prioritising. Like the line in the song,
I say tomato, you say 'tamater'",
it is a matter of semantics, which I do not want to get into. What the Government have done, and on which they should be congratulated, is to pool the community health service moneys, the hospital expenditure moneys and the drugs budget moneys, making them available to the health authorities in their entirety so that health authorities can prioritise locally as they wish. Such local prioritising must be right. However, that has probably highlighted the differences in prescribing guidelines throughout Britain.
In an Adjournment debate on 13 April, I highlighted the cases of two constituents who were not at that time receiving beta interferon—Ms Lesley Jordan and Mrs. Noreen Heffer. The first of those two ladies is now receiving beta interferon, but the second still is not, and I continue to campaign for her to receive it as soon as possible. But in east Kent the amount of money allocated

to beta interferon is much greater than in equivalent sized health authorities elsewhere, yet we have a long waiting list.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that in some areas there is not a waiting list, but that is because the prescribing guidelines there are different. The money might be available and there might be no waiting list, but a person might not be put on the waiting list because the doctors there might not consider that beta interferon was a suitable treatment. On that basis, creating NICE must be right. It is the right organisation with the right task, and its guidelines will be invaluable in solving such problems.
I said earlier that NICE requires some refinements. One thing that NICE has not publicly said that it will do, but which I hope that it will, is to look at the regulatory process and advise the Government and the EU on how it is working. Hon. Members may not realise it, but in America the Food and Drug Administration takes raw data from pharmaceutical companies and carries out its own expert analysis. In the United Kingdom, the pharmaceutical companies analyse the data and produce their own expert reports on efficacy, toxicology and so on. Our drugs agencies assess those expert reports to see whether the analysis is correct and whether the appropriate conclusions have been drawn. It is a different process.
NICE should be looking at that process and asking whether there is a point at which it should intervene or enter into negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies at an earlier stage in order to influence what goes into the expert efficacy report so that decisions can be made more effectively and rapidly once licensing approval has been given. Could NICE perhaps write an additional expert report, requesting the raw data in order rapidly to produce such a report? Discussions between NICE and the pharmaceutical industry could resolve many of the problems that have been highlighted today, and I encourage NICE to continue with such discussions.
At the end of the day, however, even with common prescribing guidelines across the country—here I am on common ground with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—there will still be pressures on the budget. We cannot fund everything. Therefore, decisions have to be made about what will not be spent. I have said publicly on many occasions, not least in the Adjournment debate on 13 April, that we can make those decisions relatively easily because, within the drugs budget, there is a huge amount of money that does not need to be spent.
A list of products for non-life-threatening illnesses includes dermatological products, anti-ulcerants, laxatives and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. Such illnesses might be uncomfortable, but they are not debilitating, disabling or life-threatening, and spending on them amounts to £1.075 billion. Even if 50 per cent. of that spending was for uncomfortable illnesses that we decided to fund, if one added to the list medicines such as antibiotics, which doctors prescribe for colds, despite knowing that it will make no difference whatever, at least £500 million of spending on medicines in Britain at the moment could be cut tomorrow without seriously affecting anyone. We would then have our cancer drugs and our beta interferon, and all the problems that we want to be resolved would be resolved, at least in the short term. That is where we need to be putting in extra effort.
To help us make such decisions, NHS legislation should define exactly what we wish to treat. The 1945 NHS White Paper which preceded the 1948 legislation declared that, irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation, everyone shall have equal opportunity to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available. The 1977 legislation referred to a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of people in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. We should be moving towards adding a definition of the services provided by the NHS, which specifies that the health service will treat without charge, irrespective of income, all those who suffer from life-threatening, disabling or debilitating illnesses.

Mrs. Bottomley: Essentially, the hon. Gentleman has just defined rationing. That is what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has been saying.

Dr. Ladyman: I have not defined rationing—I have defined prioritising. I said that, on this matter, I am on common ground with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. There are things that the NHS currently funds which it should not be funding. If NICE can help us to resolve that problem, it will have performed a great benefit, and the hon. Gentleman will have to congratulate it.

Dr. Harris: May I dissociate myself from your proposal not to fund certain treatments that you think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Dr. Harris: May I dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that certain treatments should not be funded because he feels that the conditions are not debilitating? That puts a whole new complexion on the seriousness of some skin diseases.

Dr. Ladyman: I made it clear that I was referring to non-serious uses of drugs. I said that even if we eliminated half of the budget, we would save £500 million. I accept that there are many uncomfortable and serious skin conditions which need treatment. However, if the hon. Gentleman can sit tell me with his hand on his heart that, as a GP, he never wasted a penny of his drugs budget or gave antibiotics to someone with a sore throat or a cold, I will congratulate him on being the only GP of his kind.
I congratulate the Government on setting up NICE which, with a little more refinement, will have a beneficial effect on the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry in this country.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing a debate that he has been seeking for some time. The debate has demonstrated

the importance of the issue, and more time is needed to allow more hon. Members to have a say.
The crux of the debate is whether NICE is to be a vehicle to enable the Government to pass off their responsibility for decisions on prioritising or rationing health care, or whether it is to be a vehicle for making decisions about the efficacy and clinical effectiveness of various treatments. Until the agency starts its work seriously and we see the product of its labours, the jury is out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is right to draw attention to the order introduced in this House on 6 August, which made it clear that the question of affordability will be at the heart of NICE' s work. In Committee in May, we pressed the Government on whether they would use their powers of direction and their order-making powers in this respect. We were left with the impression that they would not go down that path on affordability.
I hope that the Minister will state that when NICE comes to a crunch decision about the availability of a particular treatment or drug—and if it comes down to resource availability—the decision and the announcement will come from the Minister, and that the Minister will be seen clearly in this House and outside as the person who has taken that decision. It must not be a matter that the Minister can distance himself from, using NICE as a shield behind which he, the Department and his colleagues can hide.
The independence of NICE is crucial to its effectiveness. It is crucial also to its standing and to whether clinicians will comply with its guidance. If clinicians do not believe that NICE is acting independently, how can we expect them to respect and follow what it says? It is essential that Ministers make it clear from the outset that they are not intending to use NICE as a vehicle to deny a range of treatments on grounds of affordability.
In August, the Department set out, in terms, that beta interferon
is a controversial treatment for a patient group with poor prognosis. Many clinicians continue to have doubts over the cost-effectiveness of this treatment".
However, there was no balance in the Department's comments. There was no reflection of the fact that the Association of British Neurologists had issued guidance which suggested that the efficacy of the drug was sound. It makes no reference to the extensive research, published in The Lancet and elsewhere, which demonstrates that, particularly in terms of the relapsing and remitting forms—and the secondary progressive forms—of multiple sclerosis, the evidence is becoming overwhelming in terms of the drug's efficacy. The evidence from such a survey suggested that there was a "highly statistically significant benefit". I hope that the Minister will say more about that today.
There is much ambiguity about the definition of clinical and cost-effectiveness. There is no clear definition. Could the Minister begin to put one on the record so we all know where we stand? On savings, we are unclear as to whether the Government will allow NICE to look at the wider picture of the costs to UK plc.
In a letter that I received a few days ago, in response to correspondence that I initiated with the Department in March, I was told:
In relation to clinical and cost effectiveness, NICE's task is to assess the evidence of all the clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention in a wide sense, and to reach a judgment on whether on balance this intervention can be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS and Personal Social Services resources.
That was music to my ears, and a step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will confirm that social services and social security resources, and the cost to the economy as a whole, can be taken into account by NICE.
My constituent, Mrs. Josephine Timms—I raised her case with the Minister in March—is still waiting for beta interferon treatment. She is still being told that she is a perfect candidate, and that there is no waiting list. However, she is waiting, and I am waiting for an answer from the Minister. What is being done to ensure that Mrs. Timms gets the treatment she deserves?
In conclusion, many patients groups are concerned about NICE. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has said:
Both the statutory instrument on NICE tabled in August and the Institute's appraisal framework give a worrying indication that the Government may allow information about NHS resources to distort the Institute's conclusions about clinical and cost effectiveness.
Decisions about the effectiveness of a treatment should be entirely separate from the consideration of whether funds exist to pay for it. NICE should decide whether a drug is effective and good value for money compared with other forms of care available to patients. The Secretary of State should then decide whether the NHS can fund the treatment.
I agree with that—it is a sound basis to go forward. NICE does not appear to be allowed to do that as of now. Can the Minister confirm that it will be allowed to do that?

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: According to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the Liberal Democrats' view of NICE seems to be that it is primarily a device for limiting access to health care. I want to argue that the opposite is the case. It is a mechanism for ensuring that the maximum number of people have access to the most effective health care.
I wish to allude to the issue of postcode rationing, which is, essentially, an aspect of the inequity of access to health care. The greatest cause of inequity of access to health care is not at the level of hospital services—it is a public health debate. If one is poor, lives in poor housing and experiences air pollution, one is likely to have much poorer health than someone rich who lives in decent housing and clean air. The Government's White Paper on public health will address that agenda and will make the most difference to health inequalities in this country.
The second contributor to health inequality is the variation in the quality of treatment that individuals receive for the same condition, depending on their GP and local hospital. That variation has nothing to do with drugs budgets or the limitation on the drugs being prescribed. It will be addressed partly by NICE and partly by the Commission for Health Improvement, which will make a huge contribution to reducing health inequalities.
So-called postcode rationing is only the third contributor to health inequalities. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) alluded to the contradiction in opposing different health authorities having different spending priorities if we believe that the role of a health authority is to react to the needs of its region. Either we want to get rid of that and have national uniformity, with decisions taken nationally that do not take account of regional variation, or we have to stop talking about postcode rationing necessarily being evil. In a given area, it may be right that greater priority is given to one service rather than another, while a different decision is taken in another area.
I shall explain how NICE will increase access for the maximum number of people to effective health care. For many conditions, a large range of potential treatments is available and new treatments continuously emerge. It is difficult for doctors in the health service, whether general practitioners or hospital doctors, to keep abreast of all the research and all the evaluation of existing treatments.
The doctors whom I know tend to stick to what they know works, or are rabid innovators and try the latest idea without necessarily being aware of the full evaluation or the basis of the treatment. There has been much talk about pharmaceuticals, but NICE also evaluates treatment protocols and other procedures. For example, hip replacement operations are fairly low technology and very important to the individuals who receive them. They give enormous pain relief and improve hugely the quality of life of the people who need them. About 40,000 are done a year. I understand that, on average, the procedure costs £4,000. Some 60 different implants are available to NHS doctors, their cost varying from £200 to £2,000. A recent study showed that, in terms of benefit to patients, there is almost no difference between the most and least expensive implants. If all doctors used that advice and went for the cheapest implant, there would be no diminution of the quality of service given to patients but many more operations could be done and more patients would receive a hip replacement sooner.
That is an excellent example of the way in which NICE will be able to get such information quickly and easily to those in the health service who need to take such decisions and ensure that the best possible use is made of public resources. NICE will effectively provide a single source of advice on the evaluation of existing treatments and the best guidelines and protocols to be used in various clinical circumstances. That will help to drive up quality in the NHS.
For example, protocols are drawn up on the criteria for out-patient referrals. One of the commitments that the Government have rightly made is that women who are believed to be exhibiting the symptoms of breast cancer will be referred to a consultant within two weeks. It is important that GPs have a clear protocol for deciding when patients present to them what indicates that the patient is at likely risk of breast cancer and the signs that mean that they are highly likely to have breast cancer but may have some other breast condition that needs to be seen by a consultant but not within two weeks. It is important that the protocols are clear and that GPs stick to them or it will be impossible to meet the Government's targets because consultants will get clogged up with referrals that need attention but not within two weeks.
There are similar issues in respect of the protocols drawn up and disseminated on the appropriate use of drug regimes in treating cancer patients. It is not simply a question of having unlimited budgets so that the most expensive drugs can be used, but of the correct drug regime being designed for the individual patient.
The other way in which NICE will help ensure that people get the most effective treatment is that it will help avoid unnecessary treatment. I want to consider glue ear, which hon. Members will remember occasioned a heated debate in the general election before last. I have had direct experience of it through my daughters. In many cases, the condition resolves itself, and operations have a pretty limited efficacy. Most protocols on glue ear suggest that it is best when the child first presents for the GP to wait before referring the child to hospital to avoid the risk of a child having to undergo a general anaesthetic. In talking about the efficacy of drug treatments, we must remember that every drug and clinical procedure has a risk attached. It is important that people are aware of that and are not exposed to treatment that is unnecessary or that has only a low probability of bringing an improvement.
It is now widely understood in the pharmaceutical industry and the health service that not all drugs are equally effective on all patients. There is enormous hope that improved knowledge of genomics and human genetics will enable doctors to identify from people's genetic make-up which drugs will be most effective for the individual patient in an individual condition, thereby much more effectively targeting the drug on those patients who would benefit and ensuring that the money is spent in the most effective way.
With several drugs, including beta interferon and proton pump inhibitors, it is already clear that only a relatively small proportion of patients with a given condition will necessarily benefit from them. Again, NICE will be able to ensure that all doctors are aware of such information and constantly updated on how to identify the patients who will most benefit from the drugs. That will avoid the more expensive drugs being sprayed around on all the patients who might benefit, and allow targeting on those who will benefit.
I strongly believe that NICE has the capacity hugely to improve the quality of health care, reduce regional variations and allow effective use of resources. I hope that all parties will recognise that that is its main object and will support that.
Finally, I want to consider the pharmaceutical industry, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, and relate it to what I said about the importance of genomics and the future of health care. Many different factors contribute to making this country a good environment for the pharmaceutical industry to operate in. One that we are not properly exploiting is the fact that the existence of the NHS and the primary care network means that we have a fantastic database of patient information that would be incredibly useful in informing the sort of research that pharmaceutical companies need to do to link drug development to human genetics. If we find a way that continues to protect patient confidentiality but can make those records available for use in such research, it will do much to ensure that we continue to provide an environment in which the pharmaceutical industry can operate for the benefit of the industry but also for the benefit of the quality of our health care.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The quality of many of the speeches in this debate on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was wholly consistent with the quality of debate that we have come to expect on Wednesday mornings. We hope that debates of such quality will continue in the new surroundings.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate which, at times, almost raised the blood pressure. The subject needs to be debated in Parliament openly and honestly. We think that there is no dispute that rationing occurs in the national health service. There were moments during the debate when I got quite excited, particularly during the contribution of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) who made perhaps the first such effort. He spoke of the money wasted through the unnecessary prescribing of drugs. That is a topical issue: primary care groups have overspent to the tune of the half a billion pounds that the hon. Gentleman says could be saved. Perhaps there is room for debate on that subject.
Our real purpose this morning is to focus on the role of NICE. I have read carefully the Standing Committee reports on the Health Bill, and the goalposts appear to have been moved since then. On several occasions in Committee, Opposition amendments sought to tease out whether NICE would use affordability as a criterion. The Government response on a number of occasions was that that would not be the case. Yet, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon pointed out, an order was laid before Parliament on 6 August which explicitly changed the constitution of NICE, amending it to take into account the effective use of available resources. That criterion would justify the Opposition's concerns that the institute would be brought in to shield the Government from the very difficult decisions that have to be taken, given that the Government have finite resources at their disposal with which to treat the health of the nation. The institute's original aims—to promote faster access and more effective treatments—might well have to compete with the extra constraint of affordability.
I endorse the concerns expressed by various hon. Members about how such cost-effectiveness will be defined. A definition will be important for all those working in the health service and the research organisations that help it do its job better. Cost-effectiveness will be particularly difficult to determine where new medicines are concerned, as it involves comparison or relativity between treatments, and a new medicine or treatment may have nothing with which to be compared. We look forward to hearing the Minister of State's definition. I endorse the view that it should be wide enough to take account of savings in other Departments. Surely that is consistent with joined-up government. I hope that the Minister will provide confirmation.
One of my greatest concerns about the Government introducing the new criterion will be in the treatment of chronic conditions. Savings could be made if treatments for chronic conditions allowed patients to stay in work longer or reduced their need for social care. That may not always be the case, and it should never be a condition of treatment on the NHS that a treatment can necessarily demonstrate a concomitant economic benefit. That has to be wrong for a publicly provided health service.
If we assume that a financial cost will be incurred from caring for patients with chronic conditions, we must ensure that they enjoy the best possible quality of life. The Minister of State said on 10 March that NICE would look at priority setting, but we believe that that must remain a decision for the Government who can be held to account by Parliament. Making NICE responsible for such decisions would undermine its credibility and make its implementation by the clinicians extremely difficult.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on obtaining this debate. If he is right that this is the last debate of one and a half hours that will take place in the Chamber on a Wednesday morning, I am glad that it has been spent discussing something so critical to the Government's programme for modernising the national health service.
Inevitably, I will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised in this debate. It has been extremely constructive and well informed which, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, is so often the case with Wednesday morning debates. However, I shall pick up a few of the major issues and, if the Liberal Democrats pursue their prayer, we may be discussing them in more detail in Committee.
I think that I should welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon now feels that he needs to spend about five minutes distancing himself from the official Opposition before he uses the word "rationing". I think that he has begun to understand—although it was not much in evidence this morning—that the official Opposition's loose throwing around of that term in recent months has more to do with attempts to undermine public confidence in the national health service and to promote a private alternative than with the way in which the health service sets priorities. As we have always acknowledged, any system that does not have infinite resources has to set priorities. I realise that that is almost a meaningless statement. It is my belief that the national health service and the principles on which it is based provide us with the fairest, most equitable and efficient way of taking the necessary decisions. It is certainly better than the options that are promoted. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's shift in position.
We have made it clear that we want to tackle what we see as the unacceptable variations in the quality of, and access to, treatment and care in different parts of the

country. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) suggested that those variations were a good part of the system—she referred to it as diversity. I do not agree. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that it was all to do with funding. I do not agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made clear, differences in the provision and quality of care and treatment arise from different approaches to the same decision based on different interpretations of the evidence, different approaches to best clinical practice, slower spread of the best treatment and slower spread of the best ways to approach different issues.
Several strands in the Government's programme have come together to tackle the unacceptable variations in quality of care and treatment. That is one of the reasons that we are introducing clinical governance; it is one of the reasons that we have set out a programme of national health service frameworks; and it is one of the reasons that we are establishing the Commission for Health Improvement.
NICE will provide guidance on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments and protocols. We are implementing all the elements of that important agenda in the national health service, and I think that they will enable us to tackle unacceptable variations in treatment and care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said, the approach has been widely welcomed across the health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) reinforced the point. She said that for general practitioners to keep up with all the new research evidence currently produced, they would need to read about 17 scientific papers each day, 365 days a year. That is not realistic. NICE will provide a single source of authoritative guidance and advice on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness that is necessary to inform health professionals' decisions. It will not override decisions made by clinicians with their patients in the consulting room.
If Ministers decide that something needs to be banned entirely from the national health service, there are procedures to do so. In pre-NICE days, that happened with Viagra, and the decision was properly debated in the House. The truth is that, overwhelmingly, health professionals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Cleveland Police

Dr. Ashok Kumar: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a brief debate on a serious issue that is causing great concern to many of my constituents and the people of Teesside as a whole: Operation Lancet.
Operation Lancet is an inquiry overseen by the Police Complaints Authority into alleged malpractice and corruption in Cleveland police. My speech reflects the results of tabling many parliamentary questions over the past eight months and detailed investigative journalism on the part of local newspaper reporters who are also appalled by the way in which the inquiry has descended into farce. In my speech, I shall give the background to the inquiry and set out the lessons we should learn. I shall also make some suggestions regarding changes and improvements to the procedures and policies governing such inquiries. In addition, I shall issue a call for action to complete the Lancet process by imposing a time limit on its work.
The inquiry is wide ranging: so far, 560 disciplinary notices have been issued to a total of 60 officers, informing them that they are under investigation. The inquiry has been running for more than two years and has cost the council tax payers of Cleveland almost £2.5 million. Eight Cleveland detectives have been suspended, including Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon, the man whose zero tolerance approach to policing led to Cleveland police achieving a greater reduction in crime than any other force in 1997.
In December 1997, Mr. Mallon was suspended from duty and accused, in the words of Robert Turnbull, the then deputy chief constable, of
activity that could be construed as criminal".
That allegation has been hanging over Mr. Mallon for more than two years; his expenses and his private life have been probed. However, like the other suspended officers, he has yet to have a single disciplinary or criminal charge brought against him as a result of Lancet.
In the meantime, the burglary rate in Mr. Mallon's former beat, Middlesbrough, has risen by almost 30 per cent., and street crime and muggings are on the increase. That Cleveland ratepayers have now been handed one of the highest police precept increases in Britain is due in no small part to the cost of Lancet. Part of my constituency postbag shows that a key element of community concern is Lancet, its impact on police morale and the knock-on effects on my constituents.
Operation Lancet displays alarming similarities to a PCA probe into allegations against police officers on Humberside. That investigation ended a month before Mr. Mallon was suspended: it took six years to complete, cost £4 million pounds and resulted in more than 20 officers being investigated, but ended without a single disciplinary or criminal charge being brought. It appears that the PCA is able to operate with an open time scale, an open remit and an open cheque book. There is no concern about the effect that lengthy suspensions and damaging unproven allegations can have on officers who have spent many years serving the public.
In Operation Lancet, it is of great concern that the majority of suspensions and disciplinary notices have arisen from complaints from known criminals or those

facing criminal charges. In some cases, those criminals have not, as might have been expected, made complaints to their solicitors or the courts; instead, their complaints have emerged after Lancet officers visited them in prison. It is crazy that hard-working detectives who have dramatically reduced crime by targeting and locking up offenders now find themselves suspended on the word of criminals whom they put behind bars. Unfortunately, it appears that Lancet is being used within Cleveland police force as an excuse to settle old scores and petty jealousies. Office politics has led to elderly people in my constituency suffering from crime and the fear of crime.
No one, least of all me, is suggesting that allegations of malpractice by police officers should be ignored. However, I share the concerns of Lord Mackenzie, a former serving senior police officer, that Operation Lancet has not been properly ring-fenced. Rather than being a tightly focused operation, the probe is taking on the appearance of an expedition to a hitherto unexplored river, as explorers investigate every minor tributary.
I am also concerned by the way in which senior officers can launch inquiries such as Lancet but escape future accountability. Ray Mallon and other senior officers were suspended from duty by the then deputy chief constable of the Cleveland force, Robert Turnbull. If Mr. Turnbull had grave concerns or, indeed, any sense of duty or responsibility, he would surely have seen the inquiry through. Instead, he took the opportunity to tell his employers, the police authority, that he wanted to retire; he was allowed to do so only 20 months into his five-year contract.
Mr. Turnbull's retirement did not last long: within weeks, he had applied for and was promptly appointed to the post of deputy commissioner for the sunny Turks and Caicos Islands—a few thousand miles away from Cleveland and Operation Lancet. The Cleveland public have not been given a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Turnbull's rapid departure; nor have they been allowed to see the reference provided by the chief constable of Cleveland police that helped Mr. Turnbull to land his job in the sun. It is generally known that serious allegations have been made in respect of Mr. Turnbull's conduct, but he will not have to answer them or justify his decision to suspend Mr. Mallon and his colleagues.
Within the past month, Mr. Andrew Timpson, the head of Lancet and chief constable of Warwickshire, has also had to leave his employment under a cloud. He, too, should have to answer questions about issues that he dealt with in his time, one of the most serious of which emerged only this week.
I am informed that, when Mr. Turnbull left to seek his fortune in the Caribbean, a colleague of his, Mr. David Earnshaw, was appointed by Cleveland's chief constable to assume responsibility for complaints and disciplinary matters within the force. That means that Mr. Earnshaw now has direct day-to-day involvement with the Lancet inquiry and that he would adjudicate in the inquiry and advise the Lancet team. However, I have learned that, prior to his departure, Mr. Timpson was clearly told by several people that Mr. Earnshaw could be implicated in serious allegations about his role and conduct.
I have been told by solicitors acting for Ray Mallon that Mr. Earnshaw was to have been the recipient of a regulation 6 notice, which would have told him that


investigations were to be carried out to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations. However, it appears that Mr. Earnshaw has not yet been served with that notice.
It is incumbent on the House to ask why such a senior officer has been allowed to remain in post with the specific remit held by Mr. Earnshaw when there is doubt about his conduct. That prompts the questions of why the notice has not been proceeded with and whether Mr. Earnshaw is a suitable person to occupy his current position. Only Cleveland's chief constable and Mr. Timpson can answer those questions, and it appears likely that Mr. Timpson's answer would be the most relevant.
The problems do not end there. More people are jumping ship: in the past few weeks, Mr. Richard Brunstrom, who was effectively number two in the Cleveland police authority, has left to take up a new post in north Wales. The Police Complaints Authority, which appointed Mr. Timpson, has replaced him with Mr. Lloyd Clarke, the deputy chief constable of west Yorkshire. He faces the unenviable task of wading through the 26,000 documents that Operation Lancet has produced so far. The Police Complaints Authority is to investigate Mr. Timpson after serious allegations by members of his staff.
It is wrong that senior officers such as Mr. Turnbull, and possibly Mr. Timpson, who make the serious and far-reaching decisions to suspend serving officers, can escape accountability by retiring or stepping down. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that, in future, officers who are members of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and who make such serious decisions, are accountable for their actions—whether they are still in service or not—when such inquiries are completed.
My hon. Friend should also revise the way in which police investigate themselves. In the case of Mr. Mallon, it is no longer a matter of establishing the truth but of desperately trying to justify the enormous cost, time, manpower and hype that Operation Lancet has generated.
It would focus minds if the Police Complaints Authority were given a fixed budget rather than an open cheque book that is underwritten by the hapless council tax payer. It would mean that inquiries were not launched without firm evidence on which to base them. There should also be a limit on the time a police officer can be suspended from duty without charges being brought. I have met and listened to Cleveland police officers who have graphically described the devastating impact of such lengthy suspensions on their lives. Marriage break-ups, suicide attempts and severe illnesses have ensued as Lancet continues its seemingly endless task.
I resent it when outsiders, who seem to have no knowledge of Lancet's impact on the morale of serving police officers on Teesside and its generation of a lack of confidence in the police, criticise me for investigating and highlighting those anxieties. If officers who investigate murder and other serious crimes have to work to set limits, why cannot the Police Complaints Authority do the same? Time limits will ensure that the serious step of suspending an officer will not be taken without solid evidence for doing so.
No one wants to protect the small number of officers who are corrupt and a disgrace to their badge. However, a better regulated and more focused Police Complaints Authority should devote time and resources to rooting out corrupt cops instead of making sweeping accusations, which are never proven, against many officers. Too many people wring their hands and claim that Lancet and similar inquiries should be allowed to run their course, whatever the cost, the impact on the public, the public purse and public confidence. I do not agree with that view; enough is enough. The people of Teesside want a police force that investigates and roots out crime, not a force whose senior management team is made to devote its energies to investigating every nook and cranny of its force.
Ray Mallon and his colleagues have been suspended for more than two years. In my opinion, and that of many of my constituents, that is long enough for those investigating to charge them or allow them to return to work. I believe that Ray Mallon is an honest and sincere man, who merely wants to return to doing what he is best at: rooting out and eradicating crime on the streets and in the communities of Teesside.
I do not want the farce to continue, and Mr. Mallon to become a modern Captain Dreyfus. The majority of police in Cleveland and throughout the country are honest, hard-working officers who deserve better than to have their reputations sullied at public expense by convicted criminals, unfocused fishing expeditions and senior officers who jump ship rather than shoulder their responsibilities.
I am grateful for the opportunity of putting on record for the first time many of the comments that I have made in private. The matter that we are considering is crucial to my constituents—both police and public.

Mr. Frank Cook: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) for giving me his permission to contribute to the debate. He is a good friend of many years' standing, and we have discussed Operation Lancet often and at length. I have had to tell him that I believe him to be wrong. I fear that I must repeat that view today.
I have tried to explain to my hon. Friend that if the Minister and I investigate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the shadow spokesman, for nefarious activity, the hon. Gentleman will want to know two things: how much we know and how much we are in danger of discovering. That would give him the opportunity—as he is an ex-policeman—to cover his tracks. We are trying to deal with such a process.
I have a copy of a letter from the solicitor for Superintendent Raymond Mallon, who is my constituent. I have read the solicitor's assertions and also the letter that was sent to him on 25 March. That letter states plainly the nature of the allegations against his client. The solicitor has not contradicted them or made a counter proposal. He has not even acknowledged the letter other than to send a letter that makes a disclosure about regulation 6 disciplinary notices.
My hon. Friend has issued a press release in his usual efficient way—I do not mean that disparagingly. It claims that
hatreds and jealousies are endemic in the force


and that morale is plummeting. I shall quote not policemen's views about Cleveland constabulary, but parts of this year's report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The inspector was
impressed with the standard of crime and disorder reduction",
and with the partnership proposals. The report states that
commitment is strong, the expertise of staff is impressive".
It continues:
Her Majesty's Inspector is fully satisfied with the probity of complaints investigation by the Force … Her Majesty's Inspector found morale to be generally buoyant with the vast majority of staff wanting to 'get on with the job' … Her Majesty's Inspector continues to have confidence in the Force and its leadership.
The inspector also found
bitterness and depth of feeling that he has rarely witnessed before",
but those feelings were expressed by the people under investigation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East makes the point that much time and £2.5 million have been spent on the investigation, which continues.
What does my hon. Friend want to do: throw the time and the money out of the window? That does not make sense to me. Scrutiny of this kind must be completed. One cannot apply a guillotine to such inquiries because we do not know how long the investigations will take. I must say candidly that the number of questions raised and the media concentration prompted by those questions have prolonged this investigation and incurred more cost.
This is about washing one's laundry in public. The essential point is that, at the end of the day, the laundry must be clean. We cannot put a time limit on the inquiry process. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider and not to place himself in a position where, quite unwittingly, he may become an ally of those who do not wish to be discovered.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for his contribution—although I cannot agree with his suggestion that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) would seek to evade justice for his political crimes, past and present. That remark was totally uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend and I cannot associate myself with it.
I will make only two points of substance: first, we must inquire into issues of this kind in order to establish the truth; and secondly, such inquiries should take place as rapidly as possible. I begin by referring to the state of the Cleveland force. Her Majesty's inspector recently published his inspection report into Cleveland police. It found that overall recorded crime in Cleveland increased by 0.1 per cent. during 1998–99 and that violent crime accounted for 6.3 per cent. of all crimes recorded in Cleveland, compared with 11.9 per cent. nation wide.
There is nothing to suggest any connection between the matters under investigation and the positive approach to policing in Cleveland, which I fully support and to which I know the force remains committed. I understand further from Cleveland police that crime decreased by another 2 per cent. in the first six months of this year and is now at a 10-year low.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said in his speech, the recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary described general morale in Cleveland as "buoyant". There is no reason to doubt the validity of that assessment. I have noted the strength of support for the positive policing methods employed by Cleveland police.
The Cleveland police budget is £83.3 million for 1999–2000, which is an increase of 3.6 per cent. over last year. Latest estimates indicate that, in 1999–2000, Cleveland police will spend £145.90 per head of population, which is above the estimated average of £115.29 for English shire counties. Cleveland police had 1,400 officers at the end of March 1999.
That is the background to the inquiry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said, Operation Lancet—the investigation of Cleveland police—resulted from disturbing allegations of serious misconduct against a number of officers. It is a fundamental and important principle that such allegations are investigated thoroughly, and I am pleased that the force has acted robustly to deal with these matters.
I must seriously contest only one point in my hon. Friend's speech. There is no substance in the suggestion that the inquiry is about justifying past expenditure rather than trying to get to the facts of the case. I believe profoundly that all concerned are trying to get to the facts and address important and difficult issues.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that several officers have been suspended. A number of possible criminal and disciplinary matters are being addressed and eight officers remain suspended from duty. As my hon. Friend knows, matters involving the suspension of police officers before 1 April 1999 are governed by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, which state that an officer may be suspended from the force by his chief officer if it appears that he may have committed a disciplinary offence. Suspensions among the Cleveland police are reviewed regularly. Unless the chief officer decides otherwise, the suspensions will continue either until it is decided not to bring disciplinary charges or until the case is resolved. That is, quite properly, a matter of judgment for the chief constable of Cleveland police.
It is not appropriate for me, as a Home Office Minister, to comment about on-going criminal or disciplinary investigations. I shall not follow my hon. Friend in reciting the details that he gave, as comments on my part could prejudice any possible criminal proceedings. That convention is well established, and I intend to respect it today. The Home Secretary has a role in the disciplinary process as the appellate authority, and may be called upon in that capacity to consider any future disciplinary appeals from officers arising from the inquiry.
That is my first point: the inquiry is necessary and it is taking place. We must discover the full facts. I believe that is the only basis upon which the people of Cleveland can be truly confident that any concerns about the situation have been investigated and considered properly.
My second point—and here my views are alongside those expressed by my hon. Friend—relates to timing. This is a wide-ranging inquiry and one of the largest supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The length of the investigation is a matter for the investigating officer and the PCA, but it is in no one's interest to


prolong it any longer than necessary. There has been close consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service throughout.
I cannot agree with the suggestion that a time limit should be imposed, but I can associate myself with my hon. Friend's sentiments that it is desirable for all concerned that the inquiry be concluded as rapidly as possible. That is an entirely understandable and fair point. However, I emphasise that the desire to reach a conclusion must not inhibit the need to get all the facts into the open and to conduct the inquiry in the fullest possible way. That must be the first consideration.
Finally, on the general issues that my hon. Friend raised regarding the complaints procedure. He referred to time limiting the inquiry and the suspensions of police officers in certain circumstances, and raised issues of accountability, cost and expenditure. Those points are legitimate when considering the working of the complaints system. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised in relation to this inquiry extend to other inquiries that will take place in other parts of the country.
Some of these concerns were addressed by the Macpherson inquiry following the death of Stephen Lawrence. The Government understand the anxiety about the police investigating themselves. That is why the Government accepted the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee and the Macpherson report that the Home Office should examine the feasibility of an independent investigation of complaints against the police and various other processes and procedures. Our consultants, KPMG, are carrying out that work and will report by spring next year. We will decide how to proceed on the basis of those findings and of the contributions made by my hon. Friends and others about this and further cases.
There is no doubt that a complaints process in which everybody has confidence is critical to the respect and support for the police that exists in communities throughout this country. That is why I take seriously general points about the nature of the complaints process. I shall certainly consider them.
I return to my two fundamental points. First, we must have an inquiry and establish the facts. That is the pre-eminent issue: we must be sure about the exact situation. Secondly, while accepting that constraint, we must move as fast as we can to reveal the information so that any uncertainties and doubts—some of which my hon. Friend referred to—can be resolved effectively.
I know that my remarks will not answer completely the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North. I look forward to seeing the matter resolved and the Cleveland population's confidence in the Cleveland police strengthened.

Stonnall Road Bail Hostel, Aldridge

Mr. Richard Shepherd: In March this year, I was notified by the Home Office on the Friday morning before the Thursday in question that a violent rapist was to be sent to a bail hostel in my constituency. The Home Office expressed regret at the lateness of the notification, but the Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn—to his credit—arranged to see me at short notice. That meeting took place on the day before the violent rapist was due to come to the Stonnall road bail hostel. I quite understand that he was not able to see me before that, because he had urgent duties in Parliament. He saw me at the earliest possible time.
I was able to make representations about this case. I first raised the issue of the unsuitability of the site as evidenced in the planning inspector's inquiry into an appeal by west midlands probation committee in which the inspector noted that the Home Office guidance note on the location of bail hostels was not met at Stonnall road. I also reminded the Minister of the fear element that was weighed in that judgment and that was subsequently addressed in an appeal by the probation service first to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal. Both courts found that the inspector had considered those matters appropriately in the context of his responsibilities.
The second point that I raised was about the process of evaluation of placements whereby, in the case of the violent rapist, even the officer then in charge of Aldridge police station did not know that a released category A violent rapist was to be moved into his bailiwick.
My third point was that the category A prisoner in question would, because of his size and colour, not pass without comment in the very homogeneous community of Druids Heath and that his secret introduction into the bail hostel would exacerbate and reinforce the local fears already raised by the management of the bail hostel and by the incidents perceived by residents. Officers of the probation service have attended public meetings and have heard the alarm of local residents, of local councillors and of myself.
Fourthly, I have made representations and expressed concerns about a system of management that could set aside the observations and conclusions of a planning inspector that have significant implications for the original purpose of the building as a bail hostel. Although the planning inspector's approach was upheld in the High Court and Court of Appeal, it was decided to accommodate a man described by one of the senior representatives of the agencies involved in placement as "my worst nightmare". I advised Lord Williams, as I had done the chief probation officer for the west midlands, that I would feel in conscience bound that it was my duty to notify local residents that there may be a danger. I also argued that the appropriate way forward was for the authorities to apply what is known in the United States as Megan's law and to notify local residents of the possibility of an increased risk to the community.
In the event, and to forestall disclosure, the west midlands probation service did not place the released violent rapist in Stonnall road. The Home Secretary and his office were aware of my concern.
Two weeks ago, at 9.49 am on Thursday 28 October, I received a fax from the office of the Minister of State advising me of the arrival that day of a convicted


paedophile. This man has spent 39 of the last 43 years behind bars. He was last sentenced in January 1998 to three years in prison for the attempted abduction of a 13-year-old boy. When he was released earlier this year, he broke the conditions of his bail within 24 hours and was subsequently returned to prison to serve a further six months of his sentence. The authorities had, therefore, more than six months to prepare for his release back into the community. Apparently, as in the earlier case I described, they did not think it appropriate to give much notice to the Minister to enable him to notify the local Member of Parliament or to make such inquiries as he may have thought necessary to satisfy himself that the arrangements were suitable.
The Minister has been placed in a difficult position. His office received details of the release very late—on the day before. His private office then faxed me the details—as I said, at 9.49 am on the morning of the release—and the fax was signed by a member of his office and dated the day before. I immediately telephoned the Minister and, when he was notified of my urgent call, he responded as soon as possible, about an hour later, while on a ministerial visit to Feltham young offenders institution.
In the meantime, I telephoned the Home Secretary's private office and advised them that the circumstances of the release that day left me no alternative but to notify local residents of the authorities' decision to place in the Stonnall road hostel a potentially dangerous man. When I spoke to the Minister, I advised him that the timing and the intent of the authorities left me with no alternative but to release to the public his confidential letter.
I then spoke with our most senior local police officer and with the assistant chief probation officer and advised them that I was releasing the Minister's letter. They already knew that I would do that, because of the earlier case of the violent rapist, but the Minister may not have known, because he had had no opportunity to review my previous representations and my stated intent of advising my constituents if the possibility of a danger to them arose. I released the letter, and the authorities directed the paedophile away from Stonnall road bail hostel.
The Home Office issued a press released head "Statement from the Home Office on Dangerous Offenders", thus confirming that the man in question was dangerous. It stated:
It is not Home Office policy to discuss the detailed arrangements for the release of dangerous offenders.
We inform MPs of these announcements where they involve a placement in their constituencies so that they are reassured about the importance attached to public protection, and to assist in ensuring that an understandably apprehensive public are properly informed. We rely on MPs to exercise proper judgement in these matters.
Two paragraphs later, it adds:
The police, probation service and other agencies are experienced and effective in managing the risk posed by the release of dangerous offenders and deal with cases on a routine basis.
One of the most significant problems in managing this risk can be public attention. It is understandable that the public are concerned about the presence of dangerous offenders in their communities. But if those offenders are being managed and monitored by the relevant professional agencies the risk they pose is minimised. The risk to the public is greatly increased if public attention forces offenders 'underground' and out of contact with the public protection agencies.

As the press release contains the most recent formal expression of Home Office policy on notifying Members of Parliament, I should like to ask what it means. When it states:
We inform MPs of these announcements where they involve a placement in their constituencies",
the obvious question is, what announcements? It continues:
so they are reassured about the importance attached to public protection".
In what way can a same-day fax reassure me, or anyone else for that matter, of the importance attached to public protection? The actions of the authorities in the case that I have described provide evidence as to why I am not reassured about the importance attached to public protection. The fact that I am not able to make representations and that a 24-hour curfew may be in place even though a senior police officer is unaware of it undermines confidence in what I am increasingly coming to believe is merely a bureaucratic exercise.
The press release goes on to say that the purpose of the announcements is
to assist in ensuring that an understandably apprehensive public are properly informed.
In what way? The authorities, despite having the power to inform the public in these cases, resolutely, and often indignantly, refuse to do so. Who, then, informs the "understandably apprehensive public"? The police will not; the probation service will not, and Ministers will not.
The release continues:
We rely on MPs to exercise proper judgement in these matters.
If that judgment, as in my case, leads an MP to the conclusion that what I shall call "Megan's law" should apply, and he or she should advise those affected, whom they are elected to represent, the authorities express anger and even outrage to the media. Having denied the Minister the opportunity of notifying the MP in good time, they then round on the MP for notifying his constituents of the possibility of danger or advising them to be more cautious on behalf of themselves and their children.
The notification of elected representatives must mean more than trying to envelope the local MP in a cloak of complicity should anything go wrong. It is intolerable that I should know of such a situation and therefore be able quietly to make arrangements further to ensure my safety or that of those whom I love, while denying my friends and neighbours and those who elected me the same opportunity. Should anything go wrong with what experience has reluctantly led me to conclude is now a rather mechanistic and bureaucratic framework, and a child were abducted or a woman raped, when such a crime might have been avoided if children were accompanied and women warned, would I not be party to a great wrong?
For my part, I believe that it is the duty of the authorities to notify all those affected—those who are at risk if something should go wrong—and not just the MP. That is not only a discretion for Ministers and the authorities; it is a duty, and I would argue that, in this country, it is the right of those who might be affected to be notified. We are warned about burglars, but not about something that might be far more dangerous.
Coming into the Chamber, I received a letter signed by the Home Secretary, which I shall quote because it is


germane and should be a warning to everyone who represents constituents. The letter said:
I am writing to express my disappointment and frustration that you have failed to respect the confidence placed in you by Paul Boateng in his letter to you of 28 October regarding the release of a dangerous offender.
You have on many occasions expressed the concern residents feel about the presence of known dangerous offenders and sex offenders in their communities. That is understandable. Protection of the public is a primary function of the police, prison and probation services. That is why, as you know, great care is undertaken through multi-agency public protection planning by prison, police and probation services to put in place procedures to supervise such offenders on release from prison. The aim is to ensure that the public are properlý protected. This includes, in appropriate cases, arranging 24 hour curfews and surveillance in a suitable probation hostel. If those plans are jeopardised the services may have to resort to alternatives which offer less protection. In extreme cases offenders have to be released without supervision into the community, which puts the public more at risk.
The final paragraph of the letter states:
I believe we acted responsibly in giving you full information in confidence and that you did not act responsibly in betraying that confidence. Fortunately in this case alternatives were found and the public were not put at risk. But they might have been. I am afraid that I can no longer guarantee that you will be notified of any future cases.
That is the Home Secretary's response. I do not blame him for that. It was probably manufactured in the probation unit within the Home Office. I think that there is a symbiotic relationship between captured agencies that now no longer view these matters objectively. How dare the Home Secretary, who clearly has not read his own press release, which talks in some peculiar way about the release of information, say that when there is a threat in the community, he will now deny that information to the elected representatives of that community? That creates a closed, secretive world of bureaucratic administration.
I may sound indignant about the Home Secretary's response, which does not address the responsibilities of elected Ministers to notify and keep informed Members of Parliament if there is a danger within their constituency. The burden of the argument is, as I have made clear, that no one is appropriately notified. In the case of the rapist earlier this year, neither the Minister nor the senior police officer within the division affected by the 24-hour curfew was notified. Much, much worse, in that case, is that not even the inspector in charge of the local police station in Aldridge was aware that a violent rapist who had been released from prison was about to descend on his area.
I am told that this bureaucratic melange is, in the Home Secretary's view, secure and wise. I want women to have the opportunity to close windows that might give access to a rapist, or parents of the young children at the two schools in the vicinity of the establishment to be advised that they may want to walk 11, 12 or 13-year-olds to school. Why is that burden placed on me? It is the duty of the authorities to notify people of such dangers.
The authorities cannot say that my actions came as a surprise. The Home Secretary himself knew that I intended to take action where there was a possible danger to my constituents. Lord Williams of Mostyn knew that. The west midlands probation service knew that. The police authorities, including a representative from

Birmingham with responsibility for the matter, knew that. Notwithstanding all that knowledge, the authorities placed the Minister in the position of having to fax me a letter on the morning of the prisoner's release, and they are trying to tell me that the arrangements are secure, suitable and reliable. My experience has led me to believe that all is not well in the management of the probation service in the west midlands.
The Minister will, by this time, know full well the planning history of the case. He will know that a former deputy chief probation officer misled the local councillors about whether Walsall magistrates court and Aldridge magistrates court had specifically stated their agreement that the location was appropriate for a bail hostel. He will also know of the corrective letter from the Walsall magistrates clerk saying that, in the minutes, that agreement had not been given. Such events undermine local attention to the activities of the probation service and the system in which it works. Doubts are justified, and any Member of Parliament would have been concerned.
Those events have taken place over years, and I do not now take at face value what I am told by those who administer the probation service. I know that their task is enormously difficult, but what I am saying applies to every MP who has a prison or a bail hostel in their area. These are not easy decisions, yet it is cast on MPs to take on themselves tasks for which they are not properly prepared. I cannot oversee the work of the probation service and I cannot sit outside the bail hostel to see whether it works; I have to use the eyes and ears of those who live in the immediate area. I live not far from that area.
In the United States, a tragic incident occurred—the murder of a little girl called Megan. She was murdered by a neighbour who, the authorities subsequently acknowledged, had twice been convicted of sexual offences. In New Jersey, laws, based on the old common law, were passed to give common law rights to citizens to be advised of a danger. I shall read "A Citizen's Guide to Megan's Law" which answers common questions about the law. The guide is accessible through the modern media—through the internet and in other ways. The guide states:
What is the purpose of Megan's Law?
Megan's Law is designed to help protect our communities by providing information about convicted sex offenders to law enforcement agencies and, in the case of moderate and high risk offenders, community organizations and the public. The notice will allow communities to take informed and responsible steps to prevent harm.
Are all sex offenders required to register with local police?
Sex offenders who have been released from custody since Megan's Law went into effect on Oct. 31, 1994, are required to register with the police. In addition, offenders who were on parole or probation on the effective date of the law, as well as offenders who have been found to be repetitive and compulsive by experts and the courts—regardless of the date of sentence—are required to register. Some registrants must verify their addresses annually; others must verify their addresses every 90 days.
What types of offenses require registration?
The offenses include aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, luring or enticing and, if the victim were a minor and the offender not a parent, kidnapping, criminal restraint and false imprisonment.


How does the notification process work?
The state Departments of Corrections and Human Services are responsible for informing county prosecutors about the anticipated release of sex offenders. In turn, the prosecutors must determine risk to the community—the likelihood that the offender will commit another crime. Hearings are provided to those offenders who challenge the prosecutor's risk determination or the proposed scope of notification.
Will I always be notified if a convicted sex offender moves into my neighborhood?
Under the law, sex offenders who reside in the community are classified by prosecutors in one of three 'tiers' based on the degree of risk they pose to the public: high (Tier 3), moderate (Tier 2) or low (Tier 1). Neighbors are notified of high risk offenders. Registered community organizations involved with children or with victims of sexual abuse, schools, day care centers and summer camps are notified of moderate and high risk offenders because of the possibility that pedophiles and sexual predators will be drawn to these places. Staff members at those facilities who deal directly with children or victims are provided with information about the sex offender. Law enforcement agencies are notified of the presence of all sex offenders.
What factors are considered in determining the risk of re-offense?
Megan's Law and its guidelines list numerous factors to be considered in weighing the risk of re-offence, including post-incarceration supervision, the status of therapy or counseling, criminal background, degree of remorse for criminal acts, substance abuse, employment or schooling status, psychological or psychiatric profile, and a history of threats or of stalking locations where children congregate.
What information is provided in a notification?
In all three levels of notification, the information provided includes the offender's name, description and photograph, address, place of employment or school if applicable, a description of the offender's vehicle and license plate number, and a brief description of the offense.
How will I be informed?
You will receive personal notification of the location of all Tier 3 (high risk) offenders in your neighborhood that you are likely to encounter. A law enforcement official, such as a police officer, state police trooper or investigator from your county prosecutor's office, will come to your door and provide you with the pertinent information about offenders in your neighborhood.
The guide answers the question
What should I do if I receive a notification"?
It continues:
Are there any other steps I can take to protect my family?
Yes, There is no law that can ever completely protect us. Adults need to teach children about basic safety precautions. Check with your child's school to determine whether a program is in place to teach children about strangers. Also, check with the school and other locations where your child spends time on a regular basis to determine whether safety precautions are in place.
What am I prohibited from doing?
The prosecutor and the courts are responsible to determine who should receive notice about the presence of a particular individual in the community. You should not take it upon yourself to provide any information you receive to others in the community; that is the job of the prosecutor and local law enforcement. Any actions taken against the individual named in the notification, including vandalism of property, verbal or written threats of harm, or physical violence against this person, his or her family or employer, will result in arrest and prosecution for criminal acts. Vigilantism is not only a crime, it is an action that will undermine the efforts of those who have worked hard to enact this law.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has enough time been left for the Minister to respond? I do not that think that there will be enough time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. It is not for the Chair to stop an hon. Member who has initiated an Adjournment Debate, but it is normal courtesy to allow the Minister some time to respond. An Adjournment Debate is an occasion when Back-Bench Members can seek explanations from Ministers. However, the matter must be left entirely to the judgment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Shepherd: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was obviously thrown by the letter from the Home Secretary. The last paragraph of that letter threatens not to notify me of matters about which it is the Home Secretary's duty to inform an elected Member of Parliament. Having made that point, I shall sit down.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I have three minutes in which to respond to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He well knows that all Members of the House are concerned about dangerous offenders and sex offenders being accommodated in their constituencies. As he has acknowledged, he is also aware of the complex considerations that have to be made, and the difficult and delicate balance that has to be achieved, by the police and probation services in coming to decisions on the placement of such offenders.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that we, at the Home Office, take extremely seriously our role of ensuring that the risk to, and the protection of, the public are at the forefront of the minds of all those in agencies who make decisions on the placement of individuals in probation hostels. No one has taken more seriously than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary his role of ensuring that public protection comes first on all occasions, in relation to dangerous offenders—especially sex offenders. My right hon. Friend initiated the special arrangements that now exist to advise and inform Members of decisions made about dangerous individuals who may be placed in their constituencies. None of my right hon. Friend's predecessors has taken as much care, and given as much attention to the problem as he has done. I hope that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will give the Home Secretary credit for that. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He will also appreciate that the Labour Government introduced the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We have set up systems to ensure that the police and probation services work more closely together than was previously the case on risk assessment for offenders inside and outside prisons. All that was designed to protect the public.
However, none of those measures will effectively secure the public interest if we cannot be satisfied that dangerous offenders are placed in hostel accommodation only when the necessary arrangements to protect the public are in place with the local police and probation services—occasionally with the local health service. In the full glare of publicity, that is seldom—if ever—the case. Through the hon. Gentleman's conduct of this particular case, he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Salmon Fishing

Mr. Denis Murphy: I am grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate. I shall concentrate my remarks concerning drift-net salmon fishing on the Northumberland coast, dealing specifically with the village of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, although I am sure that what I have to say applies to fishing communities throughout the north-east of England.
By means of introduction, I shall give a brief history of fishing in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea. It would be true to say that fishing has always been a part of village life. The first recorded reference to it was in 1199, when Eustace Baliol confirmed his grandfather's grant in 1138 of a toft in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea to the monks of Newminster abbey, and added to it a grant of a fishing boat. A toft was a homestead, indicating the serfdom of mediaeval fishermen of the area.
The serfdom to the Church continued long after the feudal system had ended elsewhere, and it was not until 1771 that local fishermen refused to pay a tithe for the clergy's support. The rebellion of 1771 led to the partial closure of the fishermen's chapel of St. Bartholomew, when the rector, Henry Latton, retaliated by discontinuing regular services. Several attempts were made to settle the tithes of the fishery, but regular church services were not resumed until 1846.
The coble—the fishing vessel that is used today—also has a long history. In 1626, Sir John Delaval reported that there were 16 fishermen in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea working four cobles. A coble is a distinctive open, flat-bottomed fishing boat, which responds well to oars and sail, and can be hauled on to beaches and launched simply. Two hundred years later, the number of cobles had risen to eight, and increased steadily until 1831, when 27 operated out of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea.
Fishing expanded rapidly from the middle of the 19th century until the start of the first world war. That was the era of the herring boom, when "travelling the herring" became a way of life for fishermen, coopers, curers, and female fish-packers and gutters. Newbiggin-by-the-Sea played an important part during that time, when coopering and smoking facilities were installed in the village. In 1869, 142 cobles were recorded in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea when fishing legislation required compulsory registration of fishing vessels.
Fishing was and continues to be a very hard life. During the period that I have described, all the family played an important role. The fisherwomen were work partners of their menfolk; they would not only collect and bait lines, but take part in hauling the family boat across the beach, and in launching and retrieving it from the sea. On the coble's return, mothers, wives and daughters had to be on the beach to haul the boat, load it and take part in the beach auction of the catch. Similarly, as the menfolk manned the Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat, the ladies helped launch it by dragging it down to the sea. That practice continued right up until the 1950s, when tractors were introduced.
Today, seven cobles sail out of Newbiggin-by£the£Sea. Eight larger vessels, which require harbour facilities, fish from Blyth. Although fishing continues to be a demanding and dangerous occupation, it is a way of life that is valued

greatly by those who take part in it. Its traditions stretch for generations. I would like to see that way of life continue. I hope to demonstrate why the fishing communities that I represent have an excellent case for the reinstatement of the length of their season.
I stress that I am very concerned about conserving fishing stocks. The fishermen assure me that it is in their interests to ensure continued conservation. All they ask is that they are treated fairly—which I do not think happened last year. Prior to the beginning of the fishing season last year, fishermen were advised before taking out their licences that the season might be shortened. They started fishing at the beginning of March, and were instructed to stop almost immediately. They could not begin again until 1 June. They effectively lost 44 days of a fishing season which lasts for only 113 days.
I was approached by the fishermen on the issue and wrote to the Minister requesting, first, that the fishermen be compensated for the shortening of the season—at the very least by returning a part of their licence fee—and, secondly, that the season be extended by approximately 20 days until the end of September. I am most grateful that, at very short notice, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation of fishermen from Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, and listened to and reported on their concerns. Unfortunately, they received no compensation. I feel that the buck of responsibility for extending the fishing season or, indeed, paying compensation, was passed between the Environment Agency and MAFF.
It would appear that the decision to shorten the 1999 season was made on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. It advised the Government that stocks of multi-sea winter salmon—salmon that spend more than one winter at sea—in the north Atlantic had fallen to very low levels, and that extreme caution should be exercised in their management.
It is, however, also true that the north-east has not been as badly affected by the decline in spring salmon as other regions. Indeed, 1999 has seen some of the largest catches ever in the Tyne and other salmon rivers of Northumberland. Huge catches of salmon have been recorded recently in the River Tyne. On one beat alone, 80 fish were brought to the net in six days. In another part of the river, one angler accounted for 45 salmon of up to 21 lb over four days. There are many other examples of enormous catches of salmon in Northumberland.
The fishermen whom I met expressed serious concerns about the very powerful angling lobby—some members of whom they think are employed by the Environment Agency in fisheries management. How many individuals employed in fisheries management hold angling licences issued by the agency? If there are people with angling licences who are involved in decision making in fisheries management, how does the agency ensure impartiality?
Bearing in mind the decision not to extend the salmon season into September, does the Minister intend introducing mandatory catch and release at the back end of the angling season in order to protect multi-sea winter stocks? I suppose that it is a measure of the netsmen's suspicion of the agency that they asked me specifically to pose those questions.
Personally, I have nothing against anglers. Indeed, I fished for many years. I am, however, concerned about the future livelihood of people whom I represent.


The potential for fishing salmon has declined dramatically over recent years. Even during the present season, fishing is limited to Monday to Friday—Monday, 6 am to 8 pm, Tuesday to Thursday, 4 am to 8 pm and Friday, 4 am to 6 pm. Night and weekend fishing have gradually been eroded.
The water off Northumberland is also a major factor. For days on end during the season, boats cannot get out to fish. As a result of pressure to maximise their catch over such a short season, fishermen take more risks with the weather.
If my hon. Friend the Minister is convinced that spring fish are threatened, why will he not allow an extension of the season into September to compensate the fishermen? That would give them only 20 days in return for the 44 that they lose at the start of the season. I genuinely urge him to consider that. I also ask him to consider local circumstances. There is genuine evidence for not restricting the season.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman knows that the issue also affects the ports from Amble to Holy Island in my constituency. Does he recognise that licensing a fishery is one method of policing? If the Environment Agency in the region is to have its grant cut by about a third, as seems to be the case, it is inconceivable that it will be able effectively to police what goes on in either rivers or the sea unless there is a sensible season. Fishermen out at sea are very quick to point out when somebody is trying to muscle in on a fishery for which they are not licensed.

Mr. Murphy: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in that timely intervention.
In conclusion, I have tried to show the House that this type of fishing is much more than a job; it is a way of life. The Newbiggin fishermen can trace their lineage back for generations. The sight of fishing cobles pulled up on the beach has been seen for centuries.
I ask the Minister to strike a fair balance between the drift-net fishermen and the rod fishermen. Yet again, I ask him to consider compensation for the shortening of last year's season, and to enter into discussions with the fishing organisations now, to ensure that there is no repeat of last year's timing.
Finally, I remind the House that yet another way of life in our region is threatened; for with the recent announcement of the closure of Ellington colliery, we could see the end of 600 years of rich mining heritage. I genuinely urge the Minister to ensure that coble fishing does not follow it.

Mr. Alan Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution.
I represent a number of salmon netsmen in my constituency, including those operating mainly out of Cullercoats. They are among the 180 or so fishermen and 75 boats from the north-east that were affected by the Environment Agency's decision to shorten the salmon season by, effectively, eight weeks.
The fishermen that I speak to do recognise the need for effective conservation measures, although at times the salmon net fishermen appear to believe that they are

something of an endangered species themselves. Nevertheless, there was some scepticism over the effects of shortening the season in such an arbitrary way, as there is a view that spring fish, if not caught by nets during the early part of the season, would be caught by rods later. In fact, the impact of the shortened season on the incomes of the salmon net fishermen was much clearer and more demonstrable, and that appears to have had the effect of pushing them towards, and increasing pressure on, other inshore fisheries.
Netsmen in the north-east consider themselves to have been badly hit by the shortening of the season, and some whom I have spoken to are so worried about the future that they are looking to buy into white fish quotas, which could be a very costly business. There was a glimmer of hope that the lost days at the start of the season might be reinstated at the end. That would have offered some protection for spring fish and moved towards compensating the netsmen for their lost catches at the start of the season; but as we know, that was not to be.
In a letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary said that any extension would require an Environment Agency byelaw, and that that would take some time to achieve. It is obviously too late to do anything for this season, but I hope that I may take some encouragement from my hon. Friend's reply that he was unable to extend this year's season, because I hope that that means that there will be an early assessment of what will happen next year and in future years, so that anything that can be done will be done to protect the livelihood of the remaining netsmen. If that includes starting the season late, I hope that an extension will be granted. 1 also hope that that might be considered on a river by river basis.
I believe that the visit by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was well received by the fishermen. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has responsibility for fisheries, is highly regarded by fishermen in the north-east and I know that he has done all that he can to ensure that the netsmen are treated fairly, but the netsmen really need to know where they stand. If their income is to be further eroded, or if salmon net fishing is to be ended, the netsmen deserve to be compensated.
This should not be a battle between net and rod, or between the Environment Agency and fishermen. The aim should be to do all that we can to ensure a decent livelihood, and future, for everyone in our coastal communities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has made his case. I can confirm that, in his correspondence and his meeting with my colleagues at the Ministry, he has truly represented the interests of the fishermen of his constituency. I also appreciate the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell).
Before I respond to the speeches, it might help to put the issue in context if I start by saying that I have been sympathetic to the north-east fishery. As a Government, we have never blamed the drift-net fishery for the decline in salmon stocks. There has been a decline for several


reasons. We have resisted what has at times been enormous pressure to close down that fishery; we know its cultural and historic role, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck outlined very well, and its important role in taking pressure off inshore stocks at certain times of the year.
However, I always told the rodsmen and the netsmen that we would proceed on the basis of science, and when we were under pressure to close down nets, I always said that if there was a scientific case to do so, we would consider it. As it happens, a clear scientific case has never been made for the closure of the north-east fishery. However, the case has undoubtedly been made for taking action to protect spring-running fish. Everyone, from all parts of the industry and the fishing sector, accepts that.
I always said that if there was evidence that action must be taken, we would take action; and that even if that involved tough decisions, we would take tough decisions on the basis of conservation. We have taken those decisions, and I believe that our decisions have been fair. I shall explain some of the background.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck asks how many officials in the Environment Agency hold rod licences. The answer is that I do not know; I am sure that some do, because angling is a popular sport. However, I believe that it would be wrong for the fishermen to suggest that there is bias in the Environment Agency simply because some of their staff may have an interest in rod fishing.
I also remind my hon. Friend and the fishermen whom he represents that, some years ago, the north-east salmon netting review was carried out. The Environment Agency was behind that review, and that review produced clear scientific arguments that the drift-nets were not having a detrimental effect on stocks. It would, therefore, be very unfair to suggest that the Environment Agency was biased in that respect. I do not accept that.

Mr. Beith: I accept some of what the Minister is saying, but he will recognise that the previous Government, despite receiving that evidence, went ahead and placed restrictions on salmon fishing which will eventually drive it out altogether. He must understand that the feeling of persecution on the part of fishermen dates primarily from that time, and that they look to him to do something to offset that and to give them a better future.

Mr. Morley: I do understand that point and I do understand how the fishermen feel about the matter. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about cuts in grant in aid to the Environment Agency on the fishery side. It gave us no pleasure at all to take that decision. We did not want to take it; it was forced on us because of the state of the finances in the Department's budget. Several difficult decisions were taken; that was one of them. This afternoon, I shall meet the chairs of the regional fisheries committees to discuss that. The cut will not take place until the last year of the comprehensive spending review period—2001—which gives time to prepare. It also gives time because we shall start the review of the next CSR period. We shall start that review in 2000, before the cut comes in. It is an opportunity to look at the future budget and how we might deal with that issue.
This year, we have made available £500,000 extra in grant in aid to the Environment Agency for fisheries, especially in relation to enforcement of the measures, because we want them to work for the benefit of salmon conservation. That must be the key issue.
My hon. Friend rightly said that this was all about the pressure on the multi-sea winter salmon—the spring-running salmon—and the dramatic decline that has taken place in the north Atlantic in recent years. Last year, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advised that stocks had fallen to unprecedentedly low levels, and that extreme caution should be exercised in their management. It recommended that the level of exploitation of MSW salmon be significantly reduced in 1999. Advice received this year from ICES has said that the situation has not improved. ICES believes that stocks of MSW salmon are now below safe biological limits. Our own scientific advisers have confirmed that those stocks, particularly of early-running spring salmon, are in decline throughout England and Wales. There are also problems in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned compensation. I do not want to duck the issue. Two aspects are relevant. The first is the cost of the licences issued to netsmen by the Environment Agency. They are entitled to make a case for a reduction in the cost of the licences because of the reduction in days, and it is for the Environment Agency, which administers the licences, to decide on that.
Secondly, there is a general issue of compensation. As a general principle, if the Government are introducing conservation measures to protect stocks, we do not believe that there is a justification for compensation. It is in the interests of those who will benefit from such conservation to take the necessary actions, even though I accept that in the short term, there may be a cost to carry. That is true in the case of commercial netsmen, and we understand their position.
We introduced a byelaw to postpone the start of the salmon netting season, to which my hon. Friend referred. That was part of a package of measures for conservation introduced by the Environment Agency and approved by me as a byelaw. The measures are designed to reduce the exploitation of spring salmon in England and Wales by both rods and nets.
We have tried to be fair. Although we allow the salmon netsmen to start on 1 June, the catch-and-release obligation does not end until 16 June. The purpose is not just to take the salmon off the netsmen to allow the rodsmen to catch them, but to give time for the salmon to get up the rivers to the spawning beds. It is a conservation measure, and is not intended to disadvantage one side or the other.
The consultation started in autumn 1998 and the measures were advertised in early November that year. All interested parties had an opportunity to put forward their views and to object to the proposals if they so wished. There were, indeed, a large number of objections. We held meetings, allowed people to state their case and listened carefully to their objections before we confirmed the byelaws. Some changes to the draft byelaws were made, in response to legitimate comments from various groups during the consultation.
Under the byelaws, the netting season is delayed until 1 June, catch-and-release is mandatory for salmon caught by anglers before 16 June, and the use of baits for salmon


is prohibited until the same date. The byelaws came into effect on 15 April 1999. As a result, no wild salmon can be caught and killed legally in England and Wales before 1 June.
As my hon. Friend said, although the netsmen started the season before the byelaws were introduced, it was well known that consultation was taking place and that byelaws were planned. I accept that, ideally, it would have been better to introduce the new measures before the opening of the drift-netting season, but unfortunately that was not possible because of the processes involved.
My hon. Friend argues for an extension of the season for 20 days. He is right to say that a further byelaw would be required to amend the existing one. The process is lengthy, necessitating further consultation.
I stress that any amendment must be based on the principle of salmon conservation. I shall not take steps that compromise existing measures. I give my hon. Friends an undertaking that I will raise the matter with the Environment Agency, and ask its advice about the implications of an extension towards the end of the season. I shall also consult the angling and fishing industries about that. I want that advice before I consider amending the measures that we have already taken.
I shall write to my hon. Friends with the views of the Environment Agency, and state whether I believe that there is a case to undertake the consultation that would follow if we decided to proceed. I emphasise that I will not do that if it compromises the existing measures. I understand that they are difficult for all sides, but they are in the interests of the fishery and for the benefit of the stock.
We have tried to be fair. For example, we have not restricted sea trout fishing, particularly in nets, from which the salmon can be released unharmed and the sea trout, which are not under threat, can be taken.
The north-east coast drift-net fishery is a mixed stock fishery. which exploits salmon from more than one river. Mixed stock fisheries present particular management problems, and as we have heard, they are being phased out. In addition, the advice of ICES is that particular caution is to be exercised in the management of fisheries that exploit multi-sea winter salmon. That is a further reason for not exempting that fishery from the measures that we have taken to conserve salmon.
It is true that in respect of salmon stocks, the north-east has not been as badly affected as some other parts of the country, but we must be cautious. Some of the salmon

stocks in the River Tyne are improving from very low levels, owing primarily to industrial pollution. In 1976, the salmon rod catch in the River Tyne was in double figures only, whereas in 1997, it totalled almost 1,500.
I am sure that anglers and netsmen alike are delighted that salmon stocks on rivers in the north-east have increased so significantly in recent years, but I must caution them that recovery could conceal other adverse trends, because it is coming from such a low base. There is no evidence to support the thesis that the north-east has not been affected by the general decline in multi-sea winter salmon that is taking place throughout the north Atlantic. We support a river by river conservation management programme. That has been undertaken on many rivers and is proceeding well.
The shortening of the season does not seem to have had an adverse effect on catches in the north-east coast drift-net fishery. Even though the salmon netting season has been delayed until 1 June, provisional figures based on the netsmen's own returns suggest that catches of salmon and sea trout in that fishery increased substantially in 1999. Nearly 24,000 salmon and 15,000 sea trout were caught this year, compared to catches of 17,000 salmon and 11,000 sea trout in 1998. This year, even after the opening of the nets has been put back to 1 June, there has been an increase in catches of more than 30 per cent.
On Monday, I was speaking to a north-east salmon drift-net fisherman at sea about his season, which he confirmed had been a good one. Nevertheless, I confirm that I have a good deal of sympathy for the case made by my hon. Friend. I reiterate that I am willing to discuss with the Environment Agency an extension of 20 days, but I do not want to build up my hon. Friend's hopes, because my discussion with the Environment Agency will be based on the principle of salmon conservation management. I shall not undertake the consultation necessary for a new byelaw if it is not in the interests of the stock. That must be the bottom line.
My hon. Friend has presented a well-argued case on behalf of his fishermen. I shall reflect on it and take professional advice, and I shall be happy to write to him with my conclusions.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Special Advisers

Mr. Nigel Evans: What controls there are on the number of special advisers. [96778]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Under the terms of the ministerial code, Cabinet Ministers may each appoint up to two special advisers. All appointments require the prior written approval of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Evans: First, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and wish her well in her new post. As a priority, will she look at the number of special advisers, which has grown dramatically under the Government, particularly in the Prime Minister's office? Under the previous Conservative Government there were eight in that office; now there are 21. Does she agree that it is inappropriate for those special advisers to take over the role formerly filled by politically neutral civil servants? Does she not think that their number and powers should be reduced? Have not a cadre of Labour placemen and spin doctors been appointed—funded by the taxpayer—so that they can spin the Labour mantra up to and including the next general election?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I have obviously looked carefully at that issue, because this is not the first time that he has raised it. No. 10 has never hidden the number of advisers it has or the amount of money that they get paid. We made it very clear, in opposition through to taking office, that we wanted advisers in No. 10, together with Ministers, to drive policy forward. We have never denied that we wanted a central force to help to push things through. My special advisers—in Northern Ireland and in the Cabinet Office—work hand in hand with the civil service. They have different functions and different jobs, but it is useful when they work together.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post. I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am a former special adviser. Does she agree that it is about time that the Opposition recognised that, under the previous Government, special advisers worked with Ministers to help them to achieve their objectives and that the same is true of the advisers working under the current Administration? The only difference is that the current advisers are rather more effective than their predecessors.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I agree that our advisers are more effective and I find the two who work with me very useful. They do not spin, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley

(Mr. Evans) said, but do what they did for us in opposition—work on the political aspects of policy, which is not the job of many of the civil servants.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I, too, welcome the Minister to her new post and I hope that it will prove to be as absorbing, though perhaps not as dangerous, as her previous one.
In answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), the Minister suggested that there has been no change in the role of special advisers. Will she look again at the terms of appointment? They deliberately excluded an important criterion after May 1997. She will know that up to that date special advisers were told to avoid
activities likely to give rise to criticism that
they
are being employed at public expense for purely party political purposes".
That was removed from the new letters of appointment. Will she reinstate that requirement?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I am sure that my present job will be as absorbing as my previous one; it may even be as dangerous, in some ways, as I try to work across Departments and get Ministers to co-operate. I shall certainly look at the guidelines again but, having read carefully through the code and considered what special advisers have done, I do not necessarily see any contradictions or detect any fears about the missing words, although there may be some in his mind.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If special advisers keep Ministers in touch, let us have more. I believe that that is what the public would say as well.

Marjorie Mowlam: There is no doubt that many of us are kept in touch when we go home to our constituencies, and kept in touch by our constituency offices. There is also no doubt that the more people we talk to and mix with who are of different political persuasions, or from different backgrounds, the better: that can only be of use.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Let me take this opportunity to welcome not only the Minister for the Cabinet Office but the entire Cabinet Office ministerial team. I think that the entire team has changed since we last met for Cabinet Office questions. No doubt the right hon. Lady's experience at the Northern Ireland Office will help her to reconcile the warring factions in the Cabinet.
This first question is important. It is important for the right hon. Lady to show how she can root out the culture of cronyism that has found its way into Government. In particular, will she enlighten us about paragraph 48 of the ministerial code of conduct, which provides that there should be only two special advisers per Cabinet Minister? In how many Departments is that limit being breached? Will she also tell us why it is now necessary for special advisers to travel abroad with their Ministers? I am talking about 360 trips abroad, which have cost more than £500,000 in the last year.

Marjorie Mowlam: Accusations of cronyism should be viewed in the light of what happened when the


hon. Gentleman's party was in government. I merely say that people in glass houses should not throw enormousgreat boulders.
I believe that a couple of Departments have more than two advisers. The rules permit that if it is okayed by the Prime Minister, and that has happened. I understand that the Cabinet Minister involved and the relevant permanent secretary must decide whether special advisers travel abroad. If the hon. Gentleman can give examples of cases in which that has not been agreed, I should like to know about them.

Drug Misuse

Shona McIsaa: What discussions she has held with the anti-drugs co-ordinator on the use of harm-reduction approaches to tackling drug misuse. [96780]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I hold regular discussions with the anti-drugs co-ordinator on all aspects of our anti-drugs policy, including the use of harm reduction programmes.

Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of 13-year-old Leah Lawson, a Grimsby schoolgirl who died earlier this year after purchasing £10 worth of prescribed methadone? To staunch the supply of prescribed methadone on the streets, will she and the anti-drugs co-ordinator, and any other Ministers involved, consider allowing its prescription only in small amounts, and encouraging addicts to take it only on the premises?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am aware of the case of Leah Lawson—an appalling tragedy: the loss of another young life owing to drugs—and of the pain that losing her when she was so young will have caused her family and friends. Clinical guidelines were drawn up in April for doctors dealing with drug misuse, which recommend more supervised consumption. As for my hon. Friend's specific point about small amounts and methadone being taken on doctors' premises, I will certainly take it up with the Department of Health.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The right hon. Lady will have noticed that no fewer than six of the 26 questions tabled for today relate to drugs and their misuse. Given that prevention is better than cure, and given that the right hon. Lady is the Minister for joined-up government, will she have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, in order to ensure that the defence commitment to stopping the flow of drugs into the western world—I refer to both troops on the ground and naval patrols—is not reduced? According to a report from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), naval patrols in the Virgin Islands have been reduced. I think that that gives all the wrong messages to our allies in the fight against the importation of drugs. Will the right hon. Lady pass on the necessary message?

Marjorie Mowlam: It surely comes as no surprise that six out of 26 questions should be about drugs. The issue worries every Member who notes the increase in drug use and misuse of, particularly, cocaine and heroin, which destroy lives, families and communities. No one denies that it is important.
My friend Keith Hellawell, the anti-drugs co-ordinator, who does a lot of work on drugs for the Government, last week met General McCaffrey from the United States, who was on his way back from Turkey. The work across Governments to try to stem the arrival of drugs is continuing apace. I will certainly pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Ministry of Defence if it has not already heard his views, but I assure him that we are already concentrating on preventing the problem by stopping drugs from entering the country in the first place.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? I trust that we can look forward to her visiting the city soon, where she will receive an extremely warm welcome.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pioneering work by nurses who are employed by the Morecambe Bay community NHS trust in Lancaster? It has seconded nurses to police stations to deal with people with drug problems at crucial times in their lives and at moments when interventions might prove particularly successful. That pioneering initiative received a Queen's nursing award only last week.

Marjorie Mowlam: During my first visit to Lancaster in the early new year I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his colleagues, as well as others in the Duchy.
I add my congratulations to the nurses on the award that they received. It is in the police stations that the problems first come to people's notice. We have to be sure that, when young people come out of jail, there are suitable alternatives and help is given to them, so that they do not just return to drugs and go back to jail. The work in police stations by nurses, social workers, probation officers and others is crucial, as is that done on all the other fronts where we have to fight the problem. The battle is not just on one front; it is about stopping drugs coming in, doing all that we can to prevent people from starting drugs and, once they are on them, getting them off them.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I, too, wish the right hon. Lady well in her new position as Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Recently, the Home Secretary announced that he wanted mandatory testing of all arrestees for drugs without first consulting those who would have to apply that test. Police officers have warned that the plan is financially and legally unrealistic. Was the Minister consulted in advance about the proposal, as one would expect from so-called joined-up government, or is it a further example of muddle and incompetence by Ministers at the Home Office?

Marjorie Mowlam: I was not in post when the proposal was first considered; whether my predecessor was consulted, I cannot say. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but it had already been proposed because, when I read all the papers that had been given to me, it was already in them. Therefore, I was not consulted, but I am sure that my predecessor was.
The drug treatment and testing order is important. As I said earlier, we must do the work to begin with to ensure that people who are on drugs get off them as quickly as possible. It is a crucial initiative.

Drug Misuse

Mr.DonTouhig (Islwyn): If she will make a statement on progress towards achieving the Government's targets on combating drug misuse. [96781]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Government are making good progress in meeting the targets that are outlined in their drugs strategy. For example, we have introduced the confiscated assets fund to channel money that is seized from drug traffickers back into anti-drug activity, and launched the arrest referral challenge scheme, which will provide a further£20 million over the next three years to get drug misusers into treatment. The Independent reported that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. We need to do all we can to deal with it.

Mr. Touhig: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and wish him well. I thank him for answering my question.
Statistics show that one third of all property crime in Britain is drugs related. How will the Government strategy impact on that?

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his best wishes.
The Government have set tough targets, short, medium and long term, and all Government Departments are bound by them. We must start at base camp. We must reduce the number of young people who are using heroin and cocaine. We want to reduce that number by one quarter, by 2005, and by 50 per cent., by 2008; and to reduce the level of re-offending by drugs misusers by 25 per cent., by 2005, and by 50 per cent., by 2008.
We have set ourselves those tough targets because, as I said, drug misuse is a chronic and relapsing condition. Consequently, great resources must be provided to enable individuals to deal with their own particular circumstances—their self-confidence, self-awareness and self-worth—and a range of measures must be introduced to enable people who have completed a drug misuse programme to be sure that their drug misuse has ended and that a new life is before them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the British crime survey, which was published at the beginning of September? Does he agree with me that Mr. Hellawell was complacent in his response to that crime survey—which showed that half of all young people have used drugs, and that some drug use was increasing—when he said that he and the Government were on course to deal with drugs use?
We subscribe to the view that tough, challenging targets have been set, but none of the targets apply, or may be measured, before 2005. What action is being taken now

to achieve them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not think that setting targets is an achievement in itself?

Mr. McCartney: I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Hellawell and the Government. Perhaps I should remind him that, for 10 years, Conservative Members who served as Home Office Ministers, for example, refused to co-ordinate and regulate the security industry, in which front organisations were established to distribute and sell drugs in clubs across Britain. Consequently, at the end of this decade, not one club or pub in Britain is not at risk of drugs being sold in them, and young people who go to those clubs and pubs run the risk of drugs misuse.
We have come a long way, but we need to go further in dealing with Conservative Members' 10 years of inaction in government. That inaction put a whole generation of young people at risk from those who would sell them drugs on the streets, in pubs and clubs, and in school playgrounds. Although we have made a start, we need to do better, and there is a long way to go. We should do everything that we can to save every single life, because every life saved will mean saving one more family the trauma of losing a young person, and those young people will be able to fulfil their dreams, rather than dying before reaching maturity.
The Government are in no circumstances complacent about drug misuse, and I hope that there will be all-party consensus on dealing with it. The issue is difficult and complex, and addressing it will involve communities, individual and families. We have to do everything possible to challenge drug traffickers and to get them out of our society. We must also invest in dealing with young people who have fallen into drug misuse and cannot get out of that trap, and we must co-operate across communities, to rid them of the drugs scourge. If we take that action together—rather than making ping-pong points—we could save more young people.

Regulatory Impact Unit

Ms Jackie Lawrence: If she will make a statement on the work of the regulatory impact unit. [96783]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his earlier welcoming remarks.
The regulatory impact unit helps the Government to find the right balance between proper standards of protection and unnecessary impact on business. It scrutinises proposed regulation to ensure that it has been properly assessed and identifies spheres in which existing regulation is unnecessary or needs simplification.

Ms Lawrence: That response will be welcomed by small businesses in my community for which regulation is a very important issue. Does my hon. Friend accept that small firms in particular are often at a competitive disadvantage because of the disproportionate cost and


time involved in their complying with regulations? Does he accept that that fact reinforces the need for the Government to regulate only when absolutely necessary?

Mr. Stringer: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point, which is why we are setting up the Small Business Service to provide user friendly advice and support. The regulatory impact unit will work alongside the service to tackle the pressures facing small businesses. We are concerned that they should not suffer disproportionately from red tape. That is why regulatory impact assessment requires Departments to think about the particular problems facing small businesses, using a small firms litmus test

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Last Friday, I was at a meeting of the North and Mid-Cheshire chamber of commerce, where about 100 small and medium-sized businesses were represented. We discussed the 1998–99 annual report of the Better Regulation Task Force, which was distributed by the Minister's predecessor the day before he left office. Consternation was expressed at the costs that such businesses are having to bear. The representatives asked whether it might be sensible to rechristen the organisation the deregulation task force, not the Better Regulation Task Force, to show a commitment to removing the regulations and costs on their businesses.

Mr. Stringer: The most important thing about regulation is getting it right. The previous Administration were obsessed with numbers and did not get the balance right with better regulation and benefits outweighing the disbenefits. What is also important is that the Government are committed to minimising the extra costs to employers and creating a climate in which enterprise can thrive. That is why we have lowered the tax rate for small companies twice since May 1997 and abolished advance corporation tax, creating a£1 billion cash flow advantage to companies in general. The hon. Gentleman has to judge regulation and improvements to it according to the overall context of the business environment.

Mr. David Taylor: To develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), will my hon. Friend the Minister focus on the needs of micro-enterprises? There are hundreds of thousands of such sole traders, who are grappling with the burden of bumph and the other overheads that are the bequest of the past 18 years. Will he consider their interests as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and remind him that during the previous Administration a small business went to the wall every three minutes. That is why we are going to ensure that the regulatory impact unit looks into all regulation and that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.

Civil Service

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What steps she is taking to promote public confidence in the independence and political impartiality of the civil service. [96784]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government are committed to maintaining a permanent and impartial civil service and to upholding the principles of integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity set out in the civil service code. That commitment is reinforced in the ministerial code.

Mrs. Bottomley: I join those who have welcomed the right hon. Lady to her new job. Will she look again at the remarks of the head of professions of the Government Information and Communication Service, who told the Neill committee that career civil servants were feeling vulnerable under the Government, who are obsessed with presentation?
A growing number of people with Labour party histories have moved into the career civil service. The right hon. Lady has spoken much of the importance of special advisers. The Labour party also frequently refers to the previous Conservative Administration. Can she find one example of someone who worked in the Conservative party press office who was then taken on as a civil service press officer?

Marjorie Mowlam: I have looked into the matter, as this is not the first time that the right hon. Lady has raised it. Yes, there have been a great number of changes among press officers, and when one looks at the detail, one finds that there were not as many under the previous Government, but many press officers have retired or moved with their Minister. When one studies individual cases, however, one finds that the situation is not as odd and bizarre as Opposition Members have tried to portray it. The appointments have been open and have been made on the grounds of merit. Those are the criteria that have been followed. If the right hon. Lady informs me of specific cases of concern, I will look into them. In all the months that this question has been asked, however, there has not been one such case.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether I could introduce a bit of balance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that some special advisers are not socialist enough? I want somebody who is totally and utterly dedicated to the cause; somebody who wants to redistribute power and wealth and will advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for next year as well; somebody who is dedicated to saving the coal industry and taking it away from the grasp of Richard Budge. I have the names of a few redundant miners who could fit the bill.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. If the people he is thinking of would like to put their names forward as special advisers to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I am sure that they would be considered.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The civil service code is clear. It says that the Government have a
duty not to use public resources for party political purposes
and
to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service.


Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Government have done that at all times?

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not have any doubt that that is the case. Let us be clear about the specifics that other Governments have adopted. When you were in government before us—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon Madam Speaker. When the Conservatives were in government, there were three or four Ministers who did campaigning work for the party. The situation is not unique to this Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I think that the impartiality of the civil service is crucial to good government. We are proud to work with an impartial civil service.

Countryside Policy

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What proposals she has to develop a cross—departmental policy for the countryside. [96785]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced today that I am to chair a new Cabinet Committee to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural areas, although my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will take the lead on the rural White Paper.

Mr. Quinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new place on the Front Bench and on being appointed to chair that important Committee. Many of my rural constituents believe that we need to move forward from joined-up thinking to the joined-up action that I am confident that my right hon. Friend will promote on her vital new Committee.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The Committee had its first meeting this morning. Joined-up government is beginning to work well. I assure him that we shall reverse the legacy left to us by the Tory Government. To see how they destroyed rural communities we only have to look at bus services. Before we came to power, only one parish in four had any bus services. With the money that we have put into local bus services, that situation is beginning to change. As our integrated transport policy moves forward in January, there will be further change. We have given incentives to many of the post offices and small shops that would have closed, like many before them under the previous Administration, to protect the sense of community in rural areas that focuses on local post offices.
Those are two good examples of Tory neglect. One final difference between us and the previous Administration is shown by the fact that between 1983 and 1997 they closed 30 small schools a year. We have given help so that small schools in rural areas not only survive, but have their standards protected.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Now that she is in her new post, will the right hon. Lady do something about the extraordinary situation relating to fox hunting? The Home Office has suggested that we are going to do away with it, while the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has suggested to farmers that the best way to get rid of

fallen stock is to call in the hunt to deal with the situation. Surely that is an excellent example of how joined up the Government are not.

Marjorie Mowlam: Back in November 1997, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban, but the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) ran out of time. Ministers are now actively considering ways of taking the matter forward, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making an announcement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Single Currency

Ql. [96808] Dr. Julian Lewis: What factors other than economic ones will determine whether Britain joins the single European currency.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): A decision will be taken on the basis of what is in Britain's best national interests.

Dr. Lewis: Why does not the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime and answer a question that has been put to him? His office has known for almost a fortnight that this was a question about the political factors that should be counted in deciding whether Britain should join the single currency. Is it not a fact that the President of the European Commission has stated that the European Commission should be described in future as the European Government, and that the president of the European central bank has stated that the purpose of European monetary union is, and always has been, to be a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe? Does the Prime Minister agree with those aims? Before he denounces us as minority—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will have some order in the House.

Dr. Lewis: Before the Prime Minister denounces us, as he always does, as minority extremists, will he explain why 64 per cent. of the British people believe that we should keep the pound and reject the single European currency?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I was coming in on the hon. Gentleman's Conservative party reselection speech.
The national interest of course includes the economic conditions that we have set out, but, unlike the Conservative party, we believe that the national economic interest should be the determining factor in whether Britain joins the single currency—whether it is good for British jobs, industry and investment. But the hon. Gentleman's position is that we should never join the single currency—not in any circumstances. Indeed, he is a member of a Conservative party fringe group with 13 Conservative spokesmen and spokeswomen who believe that, if they cannot renegotiate the terms of entry


to the Common Market, they should withdraw from the European Community. That is the hon. Gentleman's policy, it is not ours, so we just disagree. What is absurd is for the leader of the Conservative party to say that he is fighting a great campaign to save the pound, but only for five years. That is not the hon. Gentleman's policy. Our policy is the sensible one—leave the option open and determine it on the British national economic interest.

Engagements

Mr. Don Touhig: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 November.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I shall have further such meetings.

Mr. Touhig: The Tory party destroyed the great industries of Wales, especially coal, which we debated in the Chamber this morning. It never reinvested in reskilling our work force, and it left us a legacy of despair without so much as a second thought. [Interruption.] However, my valleys are beginning to bloom again with unemployment falling, new job opportunities being created and confidence in the economy.
Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that one of the Government's great successes has been the new deal? It has offered hope to a generation that had none before. To abolish the new deal, as advocated by the Conservative party, would be the greatest of betrayals.

The Prime Minister: At the beginning of my hon. Friend's question, Conservative Members were shouting that I was not responsible for the dereliction of industry under the Tories. That is dead right. I am not responsible. They were responsible for what they did.
Of course, my hon. Friend is right. The new deal is a vital part of giving hope and opportunity to people who have been denied it. It provides jobs and hope for the young and long-term unemployed, but it is opposed by the Tory party. The minimum wage tackles poverty pay, but is opposed by the Tory party. The working families tax credit helps low-income families, but is opposed by the Tory party. Bank of England independence gives stability in the economy, but it is opposed by the Tory party. If any of those points is unfair, when the Leader of the Opposition gets up, he can tell us.

Mr. William Hague: Is not this morning's refusal by the French Cabinet to lift the beef ban a total humiliation for this spineless Government and this hopeless Agriculture Minister, who said in November that it would be lifted in the spring; in July that it would be lifted in August; and, last Tuesday, that it would be lifted tomorrow? Does not the Prime Minister now need a different policy and a different Minister? Does he still regard the principal achievement of his European policy to be the lifting of the beef ban?

The Prime Minister: The Conservatives do not want to get on to the economy, do they?
The sensible position to take on the beef ban is to take the French to court if they are unreasonable or do not accept what we have put before them. However, it is

obviously preferable for us to persuade them to lift their ban, which is why we have met with them and will have a further meeting. if they do not agree, we will take them to court. The only reason we got the beef ban lifted was because this Government came in and cleaned up the mess left by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Hague: The French Cabinet has decided this morning not to lift the beef ban. The Prime Minister said in July that the beef ban had been lifted only because of the Government's constructive attitude to Europe. He said:
That is why we got the beef ban lifted, and it is another example of new Labour working.
Is not this an all too devastating example of new Labour working? Is it not the case that, on Monday, he gave the French the third way and, on Wednesday, they gave him the two fingers? Is not it time to lift our own ban on beef on the bone? Is not it time for the Prime Minister to get himself an Agriculture Minister who actually speaks to his counterparts? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop caving in and start standing up for this country?

The Prime Minister: The sensible way to proceed is to take the French to court, which we are able to do and will do if they do not agree with the scientific evidence, because the law, the science and the evidence are all on our side. However, it all depends on the objective. If the objective is to use this issue as the latest reason to whip up antagonism towards Europe—as it is for the Conservative party—fine. However, if the objective is to sell beef, the sensible thing is to persuade the French. If not, we take them to law. The alternative that the right hon. Gentleman and his shadow Minister have been pressing on me for the past few weeks—a trade war with France—would be totally disastrous. It would put thousands of British workers out of work, and it would not result in any British beef being sold. The sensible thing is to persuade and, if we cannot, to use the law, which we are—as a result of this Government's endeavours—now entitled to do.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accept that the most important test by which his Government should be judged is how they tackle child poverty? Does he agree that the best way of doing that is by unifying the tax and benefits structure, as the Chancellor proposed yesterday, so as to deliver a single weekly payment of child credit directly into the hands of the mother? Does he agree that this would bring hope to the four out of every 10 children in this country who were born into poverty after almost 20 years of Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that it is right to proceed with the policies of increasing child benefit—which is very important—and putting in place the sure start scheme for better child care facilities and help for families. The working families tax credit will lift the incomes of low-income families substantially, and some 2 million families in Britain will gain. It is appalling that the Conservative party is now proposing to scrap each one


of those measures that help Britain's children. We have lifted 1 million children out of poverty, and we will now proceed to carry out the rest of our pledge.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree, on a day on which he and many hon. Members of all parties have been meeting and congratulating the outstanding recipients of the annual disabled awards, that it is ironic, and somewhat tragic, that the Chancellor yesterday announced another tax break for entrepreneurs while Labour Members were being whipped through the Lobby to impose a benefit cut on the disabled? When he looks at the juxtaposition of those two events yesterday, which does he take more pride in: the tax break for the wealthy few or the benefit cut for the disabled many?

The Prime Minister: First of all, let us deal with the facts. Not a single existing benefit recipient is receiving a benefit cut. That campaign of the Liberal Democrats is just rubbish, and no one should be told that they are having their benefit cut when they are not. The second point is this—we are actually going to get more help to those who are severely disabled, including more than£25 a week to some of the people most severely disabled. The third point is that yes, we are reforming the welfare state, and in particular, we are reforming incapacity benefit. That is for a very simple reason. Over the last 20 years, the number of recipients of incapacity benefit has trebled. There are now more people claiming incapacity benefit than claiming unemployment benefit. That situation cannot possibly be sustained. What is important in the welfare state is that we help people into work who can work and give proper security to those who cannot. As a result of our measures, those who are severely disabled and the genuinely disabled will benefit, but we will not have the system abused.

Mr. Kennedy: That is not how Labour put it in opposition. That was not the rhetoric then. The right hon. Gentleman's own figures revealed yesterday that there is a £7 billion underspend in the social security budget, yet he is giving the poorest pensioners only 75p more. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true.] I appreciate the scale of the embarrassment on the Labour Back Benches; methinks they do protest too much. What will all the money accumulating to the Chancellor be spent on? Is not the growing suspicion that it is going to be used for pre-election tax bribes?

The Prime Minister: First, in respect of the money that has been saved on social security, the vast bulk is the result, I am pleased to say, of falling unemployment, and of the new deal, which the Liberal Democrats opposed. [Interruption.] They did, I am afraid. Put it like this: they opposed the way that we raised the money for it, but even they must surely now know that if we do not get the money in, we cannot spend it on the things that we need. The second point on disability is that in this Parliament we are actually spending £2 billion more on the disabled—but we are reforming the welfare state because it needs reform. That is not a promise broken, it is a promise fulfilled. We said before we were elected that we would reform welfare. Indeed, many people said that we would never dare do it, but we did.
The purpose of reform is to get the help to people who really need it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) can point to whatever he wants, but what I am telling him is that the important thing for the country is that we manage to get help to people who really need it. That is why we have got the £2 billion extra to the disabled, the £6 billion extra to children and the biggest ever programme for the young and long-term unemployed that this country has ever seen. I think that that is the way to reform the welfare state. As for pensioners, we are giving them the £100 allowance—we have now said that we will pay it every year—the free television licence for those over 75, the free eye tests and the minimum income guarantee. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about manifestos, when we compare what we have done with what the Liberal Democrats promised, it shows that we are the people who are more generous, but we are acting in a way that is compatible with sound and sensible public finance.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that yesterday's pre-Budget report will lead to genuine consultation in the run-up to the Budget next March? In the light of that, will he ensure that the Treasury's computer model is made available to the Leader of the Opposition, so that he can analyse the Conservative party's tax and spend proposals, especially the £10 billion hole in the public finances that would result if those proposals were implemented? My constituents are sick and tired of politicians such as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who constantly say that they support increased expenditure at the same time as they support cuts in taxation. That is dishonest politics and we should reject it.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, the Conservative party's spending proposals would result in a £10 billion black hole. In the past few days, Conservative Members have tabled amendments worth £4 billion in extra social security spending, yet Front Benchers tour the country telling everyone how they will slash social security bills. Their sums simply do not add up, except in one set of circumstances, which is where they slash spending on schools, hospitals, the police and transport. The Conservatives have never yet given a coherent account of how they would boost spending, boost social security spending and cut taxes at the same time—perhaps we shall hear one.

Dr. Michael Clark: Was the Prime Minister pleased to learn from Lord Levene that the City of London is doing extremely well, despite being outside the euro zone, or possibly because it is outside the euro zone? Does he agree that, ever since Britain's exit from the exchange rate mechanism, Britain's economy has done extremely well and has outperformed most economies in the European Union? Is it not a question of the longer we wait, the more we see?

The Prime Minister: I think that Lord Levene was saying how well the City was doing under a Labour Government, and I was delighted to hear it. In fact, just as he praised the Labour Government, I believe that he attacked the previous Conservative Government in respect of the exchange rate mechanism—[HON. MEMBERS:


"You voted for it."] Come, come—calm down. I know that Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of such things. Lord Levene was speaking a lot of sense when he said that it was important for us to keep the option open, which is precisely what we are doing. It would be a disaster—I think Lord Levene said this in his interviews—if we ended up ruling out the euro for ever, or ruled it out for some arbitrary period of time, because that would damage Britain's standing, damage our influence, and damage our ability to decide to join the euro if it were in our interests to do so.

Mr. Tony Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend been following the case of Mr. Jeff McWhinney, chief executive of the British Deaf Association? This week, along with many thousands of profoundly deaf people in this country, Mr. McWhinney was told that he could not participate in jury service, simply because the law does not allow a 13th person—a sign language interpreter—into the jury room. Will my right hon. Friend liaise with the Lord Chancellor to ensure that that unnecessary discriminatory practice will be challenged and corrected at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I understand the concern that prompts my hon. Friend's question. The Home Secretary informs me that we are reviewing the rules on that matter, because it should be possible for all people to take part in jury service. Jury service is a great public service and we should do all we can to encourage people to participate in it.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister think that candidates for mayor of London should be chosen on the widest possible franchise within their own party, or is he too scared that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will get the Labour nomination?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that whoever is the Labour candidate for mayor of London will be better than the Tory candidate.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The announcement of the establishment of a Cabinet Committee on rural affairs is welcome to my constituents and to bodies that represent rural and countryside organisations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with 180 Labour Members of Parliament representing rural seats, we can claim to represent rural England just as much as we represent urban Britain? Will he repudiate Conservative policies that spell no change for the countryside, which demonstrates that the Conservatives did not listen when they were in government and do not speak for the countryside in opposition? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real issues confronting people in rural Britain are the need for change, for affordable housing, decent jobs and proper public transport? That is rural Britain's agenda. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is also the agenda of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: Before they left office, the previous Government released some 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development and they allowed six out

of 10 new homes to be built on greenfield sites. Whatever they may claim to want now, it is certainly not what they did in Government.
We are spending almost £200 million more on rural bus services and giving£500 million extra to shire counties to enable them to raise education standards. Everyone—whether in the country, the town or city—benefits from policies such as the new deal and the working families tax credit. People benefit from Bank of England independence for a more stable economy and from the rise in child benefit. The Conservative party would scrap all those policies.

Mr. William Hague: As the Chancellor strangely neglected to mention some of next year's biggest tax increases in his so-called pre-Budget report, will the Prime Minister tell us how many people retiring next year will pay more tax as a result of the abolition of pensioners' married tax allowance?

The Prime Minister: We are cutting taxes. The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but, if he looks at the figures, he will see that we are cutting taxes. The measures for pensioners that we announced yesterday will cut taxes.

Mr. Hague: It is no good the Chancellor whispering to the Prime Minister about stealth taxes now: he should have informed his right hon. Friend of them before. Does it not reveal a lot about the standards of truthfulness and honesty in this Government that the biggest tax increase in next year's Budget was not even mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday? Is it not true that even the Prime Minister will find it difficult to twist, distort and disguise the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who reach 65 next year will pay up to£500 a year more in tax—which more than cancels out anything that the Chancellor announced yesterday? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that£500 figure is correct?

The Prime Minister: No, because it is not. The married couples allowance has been retained for pensioners. As a result of all the changes we have made—particularly taking pensioners out of tax—people in this country will be better off. As a result of our plans—in particular, the direct tax cut—the average tax burden on the average family will fall next year to its lowest level ever. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he intends to reverse the changes that we have made, perhaps he will explain now where the money will come from.

Mr. Hague: Has the Chancellor not told the Prime Minister that the married couples allowance will be phased out for people who become pensioners after next April? Perhaps he should whisper that to the Prime Minister. I do not know what the Chancellor told the Prime Minister earlier, but, in the knowledge economy, if one puts garbage in, one gets garbage out—as illustrated by the previous answer.
As the Prime Minister does not want to tell the truth about pensioners, I will ask him about charities. Will he confirm that the relief on charitable giving announced by the Chancellor is more than cancelled out by the


£400 million in extra tax that charities will have to pay as a result of the loss of dividend tax credits—another stealth tax that is now in place?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point also. The Charities Aid Foundation welcomed the measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday—and they are not the only changes. Corporation tax, income tax and small business tax have been cut, and there is a l0p starting rate. We have introduced the working families tax credit and reduced capital gains tax. More than any of those things, as a result of running a stable, steady economy, people's living standards are rising. If we went down the right hon. Gentleman's path—which involves top-rate tax cuts for a few and tax cut plans that he could not possibly pay for—we would return to the boom and bust of the late 1980s.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister's officials and the Chancellor should have given him the full quotation, because the National Council for Voluntary Organisations gave a cautious welcome to the Chancellor's announcement and said that it would not fully compensate for the abolition of advance corporation tax relief. Once again, we have garbage in and garbage out.
The independent figures from the House of Commons Library, which are available today, show that the tax burden is higher now than at the last election, will be higher next year than this year, and will be higher the year after that. The Government make announcements for pensioners and then hit people who will be retiring next year with£500 more tax. They pose as the friend of charities and then are happy to raid their collection tins. Are not people sickened by the sight of a Prime Minister who will not give straight answers on tax the day after a Budget announcement, and is not that the new corruption of politics in this country?

The Prime Minister: First, let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts from the Treasury report. The tax burden will fall next year and the year after. What is more, I have done a comparison with the spending and tax plans in the Conservatives' last Budget. [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Cabinet, so I think that I am entitled to mention the plans. The comparison shows that the tax burden next year and the year after under the Labour party will be less than it would have been under Tory spending plans.

Mr. Hague: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have the figures here which show that the tax burden will be less. Under the Tory plans, the tax burden would have been 37.1 per cent. next year and then

37.6 per cent. Under our plans, the figures are 37 per cent. and 36.8 per cent., so the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that.
More than that, what the right hon. Gentleman is now advocating through his policies is spending plans that cannot possibly be paid for. He has now put in place his tax guarantee, which cannot possibly work unless there are massive public spending cuts. Hon. Members should not take my word for it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is still, I think, a member of the shadow Cabinet. He is one of the gang running the Tory show nowadays. A few weeks ago, he said:
Labour's big mistake was to announce huge increases in public spending.
Was it? He continued:
The Opposition recommends reducing future spending plans.
Do they? [Interruption.] One of them shouts out "welfare". Right, they are going to cut welfare.
I shall be generous. I shall leave aside the fact that in the past few days the Opposition have announced£4 billion of extra social security spending. They say that they oppose our extra welfare spending. [Interruption.] Let us have a little bit of quiet. Which spending plans do they oppose? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have order in this House—on all sides of the House, including the Opposition Front Bench. I am deafened by noise here, and I want no more of it.

The Prime Minister: Do the Opposition oppose the working families tax credit? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do they oppose child benefit? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do they oppose the extra money for pensioners? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do they oppose the new deal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, that is what the country would get if it ever voted Tory again.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cambridge university on its exciting new venture with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the institute of entrepreneurship? Does he agree that the generous Government financial contribution to the venture shows that this Government are keen to promote competitiveness and productivity in the new knowledge-based industries of the future?

The Prime Minister: The venture between MIT and Cambridge university is immensely exciting. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for having put it together. The venture will serve all the regions of the country, and it comes on top of the largest increase that we have ever seen in investment in Britain's science base. Many of the new companies will be the direct result of the collaboration between those two institutions. It is a very great thing for them to have decided that Britain is the place to base MIT.

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Brooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, quoted what he had said on 14 July last year. He said:
The Chancellor hopes that we will oppose his plans to spend more money on health and education, but I am going to disappoint him…we welcome…money for those priority services."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 195-96.]
He continued:
I said that last year and I say it again today. We support increases in health and education spending."—[Official Report, 9 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 893.]
Twice in the following column of Hansard—column 894—the Chancellor said that the shadow Chancellor had just told us that he opposed the extra spending on health and education last year. The Chancellor repeated that in column 905. In this House, we are properly prevented from calling anyone a liar—nor would I ever so call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I greatly respect. However, there is an Alice in Wonderland dimension to those exchanges—[Interruption.]—

Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Brooke. I will hear out this point of order properly.

Mr. Brooke: There is an Alice in Wonderland dimension to the exchanges, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say not once but four times the precise opposite of what the shadow Chancellor has just said. The remarks of both right hon. Gentlemen are recorded in yesterday's Hansard. Can you advise us, Madam Speaker, as to the best way of dealing with this matter? It is patently one of fact—not of debate.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I cannot comment on the utterances of right hon. or hon. Members. I have no responsibility for what any of them say—providing that it is within order. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he creates opportunities to raise the matter through the Order Paper—Question Time, early-day motions or even an Adjournment debate. He can then put the record straight as he thinks fit. He must use the Order Paper, and, as a long-standing Member of the House, he well knows how to use it to the best advantage.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) at last Wednesday's Question Time, the Prime Minister said that, within a few days, the Home Secretary would make an announcement about the Labour party's approach to fox

hunting. We have now almost reached the end of the Session. It has been suggested that, as a fig leaf for the Prime Minister's embarrassment, the Home Secretary might answer a written question tomorrow. Have you, Madam Speaker, received a request from the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a proper statement on the subject?

Madam Speaker: No, I have had no request for any such statement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the Government for a Minister to make a statement to the House about the position in Chechnya, where hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed and wounded, refugees are being denied safe passage and it appears that we may well be on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe. Has any Foreign Office Minister requested an opportunity to make a statement on those matters?

Madam Speaker: I am very conscious of the serious situation in that part of the world. As yet, I have not received a request from any Minister to make a statement on the issue.

Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This weekend, the Prime Minister will attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Many of us are concerned about the outcome of those negotiations—and in particular whether the Prime Minister will raise the issue of the Commonwealth ban on beef. Given that we have the unhappy coincidence of Prorogation with that meeting, is there a mechanism whereby the Prime Minister can report back to the House on the outcome of the meeting, as he would do if we were sitting?

Madam Speaker: When the House is prorogued, the Prime Minister can make no report to the House.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your preparedness to listen to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), may we therefore presume that points of order of that nature will be heard by the Chair?

Madam Speaker: No, the hon. Member cannot assume anything. I receive many requests for points of order that are in fact points of frustration or anything other than points of order. I believed, on hearing the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), that he was about to make a serious point of order that should concern me. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that I felt he should be heard.

Orders of the Day — House of Lords Bill

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Exception from section 1—
(".—(1) Section 1 shall not apply in relation to anyone excepted from it by or in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.
(2) At any one time 90 people shall be excepted from section I; but anyone excepted as holder of the office of Earl Marshal, or as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain, shall not count towards that limit.
(3) Once excepted from section 1, a person shall continue to be so throughout his life (until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary).
(4) Standing Orders shall make provision for filling vacancies among the people excepted from section 1; and in any case where—

(a) the vacancy arises on a death occurring after the end of the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed, and
(b) the deceased person was excepted in consequence of an election,

that provision shall require the holding of a by-election.
(5) A person may be excepted from section 1 by or in accordance with Standing Orders made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section.
(6) Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.")

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment (f) to the Lords amendment, after 'time', insert 'no more than'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b), (c) and (e) to the Lords amendment and Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 5 to 12.

Mr. Mackinlay: I understand why the Government accepted the Weatherill proposals. Although I do not welcome them, I always recognise the need to seize political opportunities. That is precisely, and legitimately, what the Government have done in furtherance of our objective to abolish the hereditary peerage and establish a reformed upper House. However, there are some consequences of the Government accepting the Weatherill amendment which I do not accept. The devil is in the detail, as I shall draw to the House's attention. As a result, I tabled amendments (c) and (f) to the Lords amendment.
As the Bill stands, it provides for elected hereditary peers to be succeeded on death. The Weatherill compromise threw up, by election, some 90-odd hereditary peers. When we heard of the instigation of the so-called Weatherill compromise, many of us assumed that those who were elected would be the last of the large body of hereditary peers. However, in the detail—detail that was added in the final stages of proceedings on the Bill in the House of Lords, and therefore not part of the original so-called deal—there is provision for an elected hereditary peer to be succeeded by another when he is

called to the great parliamentary Chamber on high. That is not satisfactory or in the spirit of what we were led to believe was the Weatherill compromise.
My amendments would ensure that those who have been elected would remain in the House of Lords for life, but, as a group, their membership of it would wither on the vine. Indeed, the consequence of striking out subsection (4) would be to create life peers of the elected hereditary peers. I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, in so doing, we would be fulfilling a manifesto commitment.
I, my right hon. Friend and our hon. Friends are the custodians of our election manifesto, which it is always helpful to have with one on these occasions. I hope that the House will permit me to refer to the explicit undertakings in our manifesto, which says:
As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform".
There is no ambiguity about that. We made a firm election commitment to abolish the hereditary peerage in this Parliament.
I have acknowledged the need to accept the so-called Weatherill compromise, but I believe that we can still do so and fulfil to the letter our manifesto commitment. I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to break new ground and accept amendments (f) and (c). During the hocus-pocus and consternation relating to the Weatherill compromise, when the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords was sacked, it was never spelled out that we would allow hereditary peers to be succeeded. A very generous compromise has been reached, and I believe that we should say that we stand by our election manifesto in that regard.
I believe that I can call upon historic precedent in this matter.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am puzzled by the extent of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Is he excluding from it the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Does he consider that they should be able to hand their great offices down to their descendants?

Mr. Mackinlay: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not notice that, because even I am not always as candid as I should like. The Earl Marshals—I believe that there are about three office holders—will probably remain until whenever Parliament returns to the matter. I am a reasonable man, so I do not want to go to the wall on that narrow point. I am concerned about the great bulk—the great tranche—of 90 hereditary peers who are being given the right to sit in the House of Lords for the time being. I have reluctantly conceded that they should be given that right, but in my view there was never any suggestion that they should enjoy the opportunity to be succeeded by further peers.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: No, because I guess that the hon. Gentleman is likely to have an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and I should like to develop my argument on precedence.
As a consequence of the legislation, passed by Parliament, that created the Irish Free State in the early 1920s, elections were no longer held for the elected representative Irish peers. Those peers were allowed to wither on the vine. I believe that the last Irish peer to sit in Parliament was the grandfather of Richard Needham, who is known to us all. There were never any more elections. As a consequence of that Irish legislation, the elected peers became de facto life peers, and that is precisely what I am suggesting should happen in this case. It would be highly appropriate.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House intends that there should be a second stage of reform—I do not doubt her personal commitment to that. I note that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are nodding, but they might not be on the Front Bench for ever. There are also likely to be other compelling pressures on Government legislative time, which may, in all probability, kick the matter into touch. Indeed, that has been the history of House of Lords reform. There has never been a suitable time or date—there has never been an occasion when there could be concord across parties. Let us hope that we are wrong, but let us assume that this will be the last time that Parliament visits the issue for a little while.
If my colleagues say that I am being unfair or unrealistic—a charge which I do not accept—I suggest that they examine the Lords amendment. The provisions that we are discussing, which I wish to amend, underscore the fact that there will be some perpetuity in the idea of hereditaries continuing. As the provisions stand, for the next two years, if a vacancy occurs among the elected hereditaries, the agreed system is that he should be succeeded by the next person in ranking order in the recent election. However, after 2003 there is provision for by-elections. That takes us well into the next Parliament, and I have a feeling that things will be bedded down by then. There may not be the opportunities that exist now to achieve even limited agreement across parties.
The new Labour Government will be rapacious in their appetite for parliamentary time and the implementation of their social programme—I certainly hope so—and I foresee therefore that this matter will not be revisited. The Bill, as before us, buttresses my argument that provision is being made for hereditary peers to go on and on.
3.45 pm
Bearing in mind the historic precedent of the Irish peerage and the fact that there is agreement throughout the country that reform of the House of Lords must be completed in this Parliament, at least as an interim, I hope that we will not negate the manifesto commitment to do away with the hereditary peerage and that the House will find merit in my amendments, which will ensure that there are no hereditaries hereafter.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In 52 days from now, we shall reach the end of the 20th century. Few of those who saw the start of this century, and certainly not those who founded the Labour party almost 100 years ago, would have found it credible that the crucial step that we propose to take today— a step that they advocated when our party was founded— would still be incomplete some 89 years after those in this House

imagined that reform had begun. We have spent more years discussing Lords reform in this century than it has days left to run, yet the Conservative party is still calling for more time.
As we begin the discussions today, we take the next and arguably the most crucial step in the journey that began so long ago. During this century of breathtaking change, much has been done to change, modernise and improve our Parliament. All men and even all women have gained the right to vote—the right to have their say in how and by whom our country is governed—yet while not just a wind, but a hurricane of change has swept through our country and most of our institutions, in one corner of our legislature time has, in effect, stood still.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Not for a moment.
Some 750 of our fellow countrymen and, in a few cases, fellow countrywomen retain to this day the right to a place in the other House solely on the basis of their birth, not of their achievements or even of their capacity. Some of them have a record of achievement or service of which anyone would, rightly, be proud. Some of them are wise. That is beside the point, because they do not need to be so.
The acceptance of the amendment in the House of Lords was, in effect, an acceptance that the right to sit in our legislature can no longer be handed down as though it were a possession or a piece of property.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She criticises the right of hereditary peers, which has been in existence for 600 years. The Prime Minister is using his patronage to create between two and four Labour life peers a week. How long is that likely to continue?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to the debates—I think that he is a new attender—he would know that the Government have made it plain that the most that we would seek in the House of Lords is parity with the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the number and speed of creations since the general election. I do not recall when he entered the House, but I am sure that he has been present from the 1980s. He knows that the former Tory Prime Ministers—both Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—used their power of patronage to create twice as many Conservative peers as Labour peers, although the Conservative party already had—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The numbers are on the record, and the Conservative party already had a majority in the House of Lords. I repeat that the Government have said that we do not believe that any political party should have a majority


in the House of Lords, which the hon. Gentleman's party has been most reluctant to echo. We seek not a majority, but broad parity in the House of Lords.

Mr. David Winnick: As regards the hereditaries, did not the recent incident in another place illustrate the argument? Someone was protesting because in future he would not be able to sit there. His father's title stems from a relationship between Charles II and Nell Gwynne more than 300 years ago. How can it possibly be justified that someone should sit in Parliament because of a relationship between a monarch and a lady that took place so long ago? That person performed a good service by showing how absurd it is for the hereditaries to continue.

Mrs. Beckett: I am usually most grateful for my hon. Friend's interventions, but I was trying to avoid introducing the Earl of Burford into the debate, although I agree that, from our point of view, he came straight from central casting as, indeed, did his argument. As my hon. Friend says, in this day and age it is absurd to find people who still argue that they should serve in our legislature on such a basis.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The right hon. Lady sought to justify the huge number of life peers created by the Prime Minister by saying that Margaret Thatcher did something similar. As a matter of record, 175 peers have been created in the two and a half years since the election. That is almost as many as Margaret Thatcher managed in 11 years. Since the introduction of life peers in 1958, no Prime Minister has appointed more than 50 per cent. from his or her own party, except the current Prime Minister.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier in our debates. To do him justice, perhaps he did not entirely follow the point I was making. I was not talking about numbers. First, Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon appointed far more Conservative life peers than life peers of any other party. Indeed, until 1989 more than twice as many Conservative as Labour peers were created and almost twice as many were created up to 1996. Secondly, although numbers decrease in all parties over time through ill-health and death, Lady Thatcher in particular absolutely refused to create Labour life peers to make up the numbers, as previous Prime Ministers from any party had done. That is why the decline in the number of Labour life peers was so stark and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been forced to make redress in the early days of this Parliament.

Mr. Tony Benn: To revert for a moment to discussing Lord Burford, can my right hon. Friend explain exactly why a new category of hereditary electors should have been created so that, when he succeeds to the dukedom of St. Albans, he will be allowed to vote for a Member of the new second Chamber? Indeed, he will be eligible to be elected, if his behaviour improves, and will be voted for only by other hereditary electors. What part is there for a modernising Government in creating a

category of persons who can stand for election and vote only if they are hereditary? Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) absolutely right?

Mrs. Beckett: The system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) alluded—I shall return to his point in a moment—will come into being only if we are unable to achieve agreement on the way in which we should proceed to stage 2. If, as we all hope, the royal commission reports on time and there is broad acceptance of its proposals, it is more than likely that the mechanism to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) alludes will never have to be put in place.

Mr. David Heath: Is the right hon. Lady saying that in order to deal with the Government's failure to complete the reforms, she has to create two alternative mechanisms for bolstering the numbers in the Lords—a rotten democratic system that would be recognisable to the ancient voters of Old Sarum or patronage from the Prime Minister? Why on earth are numbers in the other place not allowed to dwindle while the reforms go on, thereby accelerating the move towards total reform?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not saying either of those things. As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, the proposals that I am describing do not come from the Government. The issue before us is whether the Government, as a means of achieving our principal end, are prepared to accept the amendment. I shall come back to that in a moment.

Mr. John Gummer: The right hon. Lady said earlier that a great deal of time had been spent on discussion of reform of the House of Lords. She will recall that that time was spent on discussing what should replace it. I have not played a large part in the argument, because it strikes me as being largely esoteric, given what the Government have decided to do. My problem is that I have never encountered another circumstance in which those in charge have decided to get rid of what is there before deciding what to put in its place.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), with whom I never agree except in a religious context, is in a difficult position, because he has identified the Government's own problem. If the Government had proposed to the House an alternative, we could have voted positively. The Government, however, are suggesting that we get rid of what we have, and have not a hope in hell of deciding what we are to put in its place. Would not the right hon. Lady be happier if she could propose something positive, rather than being in such a difficult position with her own side?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is kind to be concerned, but I assure him that I feel no difficulty whatever. Indeed, I am grateful for his intervention, which brings me to the point that I was about to make.
The Government have a simple and straightforward reason for proceeding in this way, which we have made crystal clear from the beginning. Debate on the issue has always been hamstrung, and proposals to change the principle of membership of our legislature on the ground of heredity has always been defeated, because those who


fought all change have been joined in their resistance by those who disliked one or all of the proposed alternatives. That is precisely why the Government chose to separate the removal of the hereditary peers from proposals for their future. Given that that is what has prolonged this debate for 89 years, it is, I suspect, very meaningful that the Conservative party is trying, unsuccessfully, to continue the same tactic.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, but then I really must get on.

Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Lady explain what is the democratic legitimacy of life peers?

Mrs. Beckett: The legitimacy of life peers is exactly the same as it has been since their establishment by, I think, a Conservative Government in 1958. They are appointed, or given their position, by the Queen, on the suggestion of the Prime Minister of the day.

Mr. Eric Forth: That is not very democratic.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman says, sotto voce—well, not very sotto; voce, anyway—that that is not very democratic. The procedure was established by a Conservative Government in order, I believe, to make the House of Lords more acceptable than it would otherwise have been without any element of life peerage. The issue will, however, be brought into context when we discuss stage 2 of reform. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will appreciate that we are not discussing that today. I simply remind him that, when the hereditary peers are removed, a substantial number of life peers will remain on the basis of their achievement, along with some hereditaries chosen by their peers, also on the basis of achievement.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that specific point?

Mrs. Beckett: I will, but I will not give way again until I have made much more progress, and, hopefully, finished what was intended to be a very short speech.

4 pm

Mr. Benn: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two points? First, hereditary peers who are elected will be able to claim a certain electoral legitimacy, while life peers will not. An hereditary peer who is elected will say to a life peer, "You were appointed, but I was elected."
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is another way of appointing peers? I refer to their appointment by the House of Commons itself. On retirement, every Speaker is made a peer, not by the Prime Minister but through a humble address praying that a signal mark of royal favour may be conferred on the right hon. Jack Weatherill, or whoever it happens to be. The House makes peers in respect of its own Speakers. Were the present Speaker—whose retirement I hope does not occur in my lifetime—to come to the end of her term, I have no doubt that the House would ask the Crown to act.

It is entirely untrue to say that there is any democratic legitimacy in a leader of either party putting people into Parliament and allowing them to vote on the laws that we are all expected to obey. That is the problem that the Government simply have not addressed from the beginning.

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend believes that hereditary peers—presumably, those who remain—will have a greater legitimacy because they are elected by others of their fellows. It gives them a reason for being there. It is a mechanism for deciding those who will remain—I hope for a fairly short period—but whether it gives them democratic legitimacy is another point. It is not a point that I would make. If he wishes to make it, it is a matter for him.
My right hon. Friend separately pursues the issue of what he believes the Government should do instead. Again, it is open to him to do that, as it is to Opposition Members. I remind him simply that it is through doing that that Opposition Members have managed to keep the discussion going for 89 years. He should not fall into the trap that they clearly still seek to set, of so prolonging an interesting discussion about the best way to have legitimacy in what succeeds the present House that we keep it in its present form.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I did say that I would not give way.
I remind both my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and Opposition Members that our Prime Minister is the first ever to volunteer to give up some of the power of patronage that he enjoys and that he has already done so by passing—

Mr. Forth: Pull the other one.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say it, but the right hon. Gentleman is insulting when he says, "Pull the other one." He should consult the Leader of the Opposition. If he does, he will learn that the Prime Minister forwarded to the relevant authorities the names—unchanged and unchallenged—of those nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. He had every right to change and to challenge them. He has not done so; he has forgone that right. That makes him the first Prime Minister in history both to offer and actually to carry out his offer to reduce his patronage.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: It really will be the last time.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, whose better nature is always on display in the House.
Does the right hon. Lady's unwillingness to state what the democratic legitimacy of appointed peers is result from the fact that, in 1958, if memory serves me correctly, Labour Members did not support the Life Peerages Bill


and, in that respect, if not in any other, they formed an alliance with Enoch Powell, the former right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West?

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: as someone was speaking to me, I did not follow all the point that he made. He is right that there have been all manner of unholy alliances across the Chamber, which have, between them, managed to scupper all previous attempts to reform the House of Lords with the removal of the hereditary element. Certainly there were those who, no doubt because they wished to see that reform, had reservations about the introduction of life peerages. Therefore, he is right that it has been a checkered process. That is all the more reason to begin to draw it to a close. It is kind of him to suggest that my better nature is always on display here. It shows that he has not been in the House for longer than the current Parliament, although I was a little hurt to see Madam Speaker shaking her head, but I move on.

Madam Speaker: It was the flattery and audacity of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that made me do so.

Mrs. Beckett: Ah! I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for clarifying that point.
It has long been accepted that, among the ranks of hereditary peers, some played a larger or more significant role than others. It has also long been accepted that, although a continued right to inherit a seat in the Lords could not be sustained, a continued presence for some of those whose past membership was by inheritance was not, of itself, inconsistent with a transitional House. Those who attended our earlier proceedings will recall that there was some fairly lengthy debate on such a principle, instigated by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).
During that debate, I made it clear that our manifesto commitment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock correctly identified—was to propose to remove the right to sit and to vote in our legislature on the basis of heredity as an initial self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, so the Government's underlying preference was for the Bill as drafted in all its elegant simplicity.
I also made it clear, however, that should such a scheme be worked out, and should it command support in the other places—which is by no means a foregone conclusion—the Government would be prepared to consider whether it might, after all, lead to a broader consensus and broader acceptance of the Bill itself. It was also made quite explicit that, should the Opposition use their huge built-in majority among hereditary peers to disrupt the Government's programme, in defiance of legislative conventions, that would be seen as destroying any such consensus. On that basis—the acceptance of progress on Lords reform, without the initially threatened total disruption of Government business—we were able to make progress on the Food Standards Bill, and even on the Railways Bill, in addition to the programme originally announced in the Queen's Speech.
We are not, of course, quite at the end of the Session, and one should never presume the consent of Parliament—I never do—but, on the basis of what now seems to be the position, I am prepared to recommend to the House that we accept this group of Lords amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has spoken to his amendments, expressing his reservations—which I suspect are shared by other hon. Members—about the Lords amendment. He drew attention to the fact that the final text of the Lords amendment allows for hereditary peers to be succeeded and for a mechanism to replace any of those who might die. He also expressed his belief that the hereditary peers who might remain because of what has come to be known as the Weatherill compromise would be the last to serve in the other place.
My hon. Friend said, quite correctly, that the proposal in Lords amendment No. 1 was not part of our original manifesto; as I said, we made that clear both on Second Reading and in Committee. He also said that the succession—or by-election—mechanism was not part of the original deal. He was right about that, too. The proposals were accepted by the Government for the precise reasons expressed by my hon. Friend. I was sorry to hear him say—although I understand his reasons for doing so—that he doubts the speed with which we might proceed to stage 2. He will know that those doubts were shared in spades by those who discussed the issue in the other place and by hon. Members in this place—some of whom will undoubtedly make the same point later in the debate, should they catch the eye of the Chair. I do not share those doubts, and do not believe that stage 2 is receding into the far distance.
Undoubtedly, genuine concerns were expressed in the House of Lords that, should the introduction of stage 2 be unduly prolonged—for more than a couple of years—it would seem increasingly wrong for those who have been allowed to remain in the transitional House to be replaced by earlier runners-up. The Government agreed to accept those proposals to reassure all concerned of our good will and good intentions on the matter.
As I said, those proposals—like the Weatherill proposals themselves—were not made by the Government or a part of our original intentions. Nevertheless, although they did not form part of our original intentions, we take the view that they will allow us to pursue a prudent and sensible route towards early removal of all hereditary peers, which is the Bill's underlying purpose.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I said that I would not give way again, but shall do so briefly to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howarth: I shall not seek to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the flattery stakes, because I am not as good at it as he is. Will the Leader of the House reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who said that the Government have nothing with which to replace the current Upper House? Why is she so confident that a consensus may be found—not only in this place,


but among the public—on a new formulation for the Upper House, when such a solution has eluded us for the past 89 years?

Mrs. Beckett: For one thing, the Government have made real progress by breaking the link between stages 1 and 2. I also believe—the hon. Gentleman has attended our debates and may have heard me say this before—that the maintenance of that link has prevented any sensible and constructive debate about what stage 2 ought to be and what the nature, role and, indeed, the position of a second Chamber should be. All our previous discussions of the matter have been bedevilled by anxieties and deals, of the sort to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock referred, relating to the position of hereditary peers in a future second Chamber. In many ways, those discussions have had the sword of Damocles hanging over them because the substantial number of hereditary peers entitled to sit in the existing second Chamber has meant that they have had the whip hand over what should succeed them.
Only when we have completed stage 1 can we properly discuss stage 2. The hon. Gentleman may be right: it may not be possible to reach absolute consensus. However, I suspect that we will get further forward and have more chance of achieving a sensible outcome to stage 2 than we would ever have done in previous discussions.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been patient with interventions. On how the procedures have emerged during the legislative stage in the House of Lords, does she share my irritation and think it an irony that when the Bill was presented to this House it was described as tightly drawn? On Second Reading and in Committee, the Clerk told us that there was little scope for tabling amendments. It was a challenge for us to table an amendment—I succeeded, but it was extraordinarily difficult. In the House of Lords, the peers have been able to open up the Bill and add all these amendments without there being any reciprocity for the elected House to shape and mould the legislation. Hurt is put on hurt. It is repugnant that those in another place can have all their say and that we, who have a mandate, cannot.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot follow my hon. Friend down that path. For one thing, it is for the Chair to decide what is not in order. He is right to say that the Bill is simple and well drawn from that point of view and that it was not possible for Members to raise many of the issues that they wished through tabling amendments. However, if my memory serves me right, we managed in one way or another to deal with most of them in the debate. Equally, it is wrong to suggest that in some way different rules apply in the House of Lords. The simple answer is that the Lords found a way to put the matter in order.
As for whether one should feel great resentment and whether reciprocity should apply in this House, first, as Leader of the House of Commons—I have always said in this context that I am a House of Commons woman—I am resolute in my defence of the supremacy of this House. I hope that any proposals would never threaten that supremacy. On my hon. Friend's anxiety that hereditary peers had a greater opportunity to discuss or

change the Bill in the House of Lords than we had, he should console himself with the thought that, for most of them, it was for the last time.

Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before and I must finish.
I must place on record the fact that the Government are well aware that, apart from the specific issues of replacement and potential by-elections that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock raised, there are other matters about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are unhappy. The first concerns some of the detail of Lords amendment No. 1—the Weatherill amendment. Some hon. Members also object to the principle of the proposals. I accept that those are valid and legitimate concerns, but the Government believe that the House can live with and accept what are transitional proposals for a transitional House.
Everyone has gained something from the understanding that we have reached. The Government have not only gained but added to their legislative programme, with measures—in particular on food safety—that are of much worth and importance to the British people.
The House of Lords has gained a broadly—although not universally—supported mechanism that allows the continued participation, albeit on a different basis, of some of its most active and experienced hereditary Members. The country will gain if, as a result of the passage of the Bill, we begin for the first time in our long and varied history to have a mature and considered debate about what a second legislative Chamber ought to be and do without that debate being driven almost exclusively by the interests of hereditary peers and how those interests should be accommodated in a new House.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am awfully sorry; I would have given way to the hon. Lady earlier, but I have almost finished.
If we accept the amendment and put the Bill on to the statute book tonight, we can honestly say that Britain will have taken a massive step forward that is at least a century overdue and has been resisted by the forces of conservatism, with and without a capital C, to this day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]I am pleased to hear that reaction from the Conservatives, because it places their opposition to the change firmly on the record.
We believe that putting the Bill on to the statute book will be an achievement of which we can be justly proud. That achievement will resonate not just down the years, but down the centuries. I commend it to the House.

Sir George Young: If one wanted an epitaph to the Government's management of the legislative programme and their record on constitutional reform, one could do no better than look at the amendments before the House this afternoon, hours before the Government plan to prorogue. Some badly managed business over the past few days concludes with this half-completed business on the Lords today.
The Third Reading of the Bill, as amended in another place, was on the Thursday before last—nearly a fortnight ago. We could have dealt with the amendments on Monday and Tuesday of last week. The House finished its business early on those days after an interesting but perhaps less challenging debate on whether Acts of Parliament should be printed on vellum or on paper. That would have given more time for the other Bills that we have been dealing with in the past week.
Instead, after those two quiet days we have had guillotines or announcements about them almost every day and an unseemly rush to complete the Government's business, which has at times degenerated into farce. We should be grateful that the Bill was not drafted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which tabled 800 Government amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill in another place.
The Government have held back consideration of this important amendment until the end of the Session as part of some crude pressure on the second Chamber. They invite us to deal with it now, as the lights dim before Prorogation. It was only thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that we were able to debate the issue the first time round.
It is possible, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has said, that the second Chamber, whose powers and composition are affected by all the amendments, may last for some time, yet we discuss it in this unsatisfactory way. With the hasty consideration of all the other Bills over the past few days, I have to say that this is no way to manage the legislative programme.
This is a Bill without vision or purpose, without principle or strategy. It is an attack not so much on privilege, but on wisdom, independence, duty and public service. The Bill makes way not for something that is better and permanent, but for something that is inferior and temporary. The Government have embarked on a constitutional journey without a compass. When they were getting lost, they decided to throw overboard many of the more experienced sailors. They then had second thoughts and despatched a lifeboat, manned by Captain Weatherill, to rescue some of them. Then they rang down for Admiral Wakeham to see if he could tell them where to go. That is no way to reform the British constitution.

Mr. Gummer: Does it strike my right hon. Friend as curious that all previous Governments bent on reforming the House of Lords, led by experienced politicians, have recognised that it was their constitutional duty to propose to the House of Commons an alternative? This is the first Government to produce a reform Bill that proposes no alternative. Is it just possible that all the others were right in their judgment of constitutional propriety and that this Government are wholly wrong?

Sir George Young: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He makes an interesting point, which sits neatly against that made by the Leader of the House. She asserted that breaking the process into two made it more likely that stage 2 would be reached. One could equally forcefully put precisely the opposite proposition—that after completing stage 1 and disposing of the hereditary peers, stage 2 becomes less likely.
The amendment deals with the so-called Weatherill peers. The hereditary peers, who we are told are an offence to the democratic process, conducted their elections during the past few weeks with a dignity and decorum that has so far been absent from the process of choosing a Labour candidate for the mayor of London; a process allegedly conducted by those more familiar with the democratic process.
The electoral college in the amendment is all the hereditary peers, and most will not be in the transitional House. Frankly, they deserve better than the charmless "thank you and goodbye" from those on the Government Benches in the other place, with the emphasis, as it was, on the goodbye rather than the thank you. I read in The Sunday Times on 7 November that a spokesman for Baroness Jay said:
They'll be getting a glass of champagne when the House prorogues. What more do they want after 800 years?
On behalf of the Opposition, I want to place on the record our deep appreciation of the work of those hereditary peers who are not covered by the amendment. They and their predecessors have a record of public service to Britain of which they should be proud and for which we should be grateful. We are sad to see so many distinguished parliamentarians leaving the upper House, including scores of people who have given dedicated voluntary services over many years. Time and again, they have stood up for common sense and the rights of the weak against powerful Governments of all colours, and we saw them do that again last Monday.
History will judge those peers better than fashion now does. Parliament will be the lesser for their going. They deserve better than the graceless and charmless farewell from the Leader of the upper House. If the new House has a shred of the decency, courtesy, independence and open-mindedness of the old, it will be the better for it.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman's comments go to the heart of the Opposition's misunderstanding of the matter. Labour Members have never criticised those active individual peers who have given a great deal of service; it is because they have no legitimacy that we have criticised them.

Sir George Young: An elementary matter of courtesy should be discharged by those in the other place. That was omitted and I was happy to put that fact on the record on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: I should like to make some progress.
I doubt that the Leader of the House enjoyed delivering the speech that she just made, inviting, as she did, her right hon. and hon. Friends to vote down a clear manifesto commitment. Last week, I heard hon. Members ask where the manifesto commitment for the reductions in benefits for the disabled was. They were referred to some rather general commitments to reform the welfare state, which persuaded enough of them to support the Government.
Today, however, Labour Members must have listened to the President of the Council—a title that has survived modernisation—with some incredulity. The manifesto commitment could not have been clearer:
As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the rights of the hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.
Now they will not. Hereditary peers will be sitting and voting in the other place in the next Parliament despite the efforts of the people's party, and that Parliament will be the better served by their presence. Unlike life peers, they will owe nothing to the patronage of anyone living for their place there. Labour Members want to replace time-honoured privilege with modern patronage. They are a party which hates the past, but which is afraid to shape the future.
Many of my hon. Friends will have seen The Sunday Times last Sunday, which stated:
Blair wants the Committee on Lords reform to stop discussing policy. He wants it to start discussing tactics. Denis Carter lost his temper. 'Tactics! Tactics! All he thinks about are tactics! He's got no policy at all!
Policy he may not have; patronage he has. The Prime Minister has created 171 peers in less than two and a half years—more, as we have heard, than my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) managed in seven years. One third of all life peers have been appointed by the Prime Minister. One quarter of the new House will owe its presence there to the Prime Minister. Is that the sort of second Chamber that we want?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that despite what he and his colleagues suggest is the unreasonable exercise of patronage, there are still more Conservative life peers than Labour life peers. This reflects the point that I made to him earlier.

Sir George Young: I hope that the Leader of the House is not concluding that we want a house of patronage, which would be deeply damaging to Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said, we should not be dealing with this amendment at all. If the Government wanted to reform the second Chamber, they should have done so rationally and thoroughly. If they had made faster progress—as we urged them to—we would have the report of the royal commission before us, and we could have dealt with the whole matter sensibly and coherently. We could have dealt with stage 1 and stage 2 together—demolition and reconstruction. We could then have judged whether what the Government proposed was better or worse than what we have at the moment.
The Times put it very well in a leader on 15 May, which said:
We see no sufficient justification for a measure which merely abolishes the participation of the hereditary peers before the composition of the new second Chamber has been determined.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In years to come, when the hereditary peers have had time to reflect on why, in the early 1990s, the Labour party suddenly took a greater interest in the question of reform, they would do well to reflect on a few votes in the House of Lords in the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as on the community charge or poll tax. Labour activists were incensed that these

people came to London uniquely to vote in favour of their own self-interest. When they reflect on these matters, they might then consider why this has happened.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question—should a revised second Chamber have the right to overthrow a manifesto commitment of the elected Chamber? That is the implication of what he has said. Even if one concedes his argument, it does not deal with my point. We should have reconstruction at the same time as demolition. The Government's failure to approach this task in a logical and considered way is typical of their approach to the constitution, which they treat with cavalier disregard.

Mr. Mackinlay: It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the Conservatives never proposed reform of the upper House—at least not on the scale that we are talking about now. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should wait for the royal commission. Will he give an undertaking, on behalf of the Opposition, that they will support the recommendations of the royal commission, and will be prepared to do so in the Lobby? If not, it will underline the point that there is not much prospect of getting consensus and legislation for the next stage.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give a commitment which I very much doubt his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would have given had he asked her. We are delighted that the royal commission has been appointed, and we await its deliberations with interest. However, it is not right to say that we have not reformed the House of Lords—we introduced life peerages in the 1950s.

Mr. Bercow: It seems as if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) misrepresents the thinking of Conservative Members of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most distinguished Conservative philosopher of all time, Edmund Burke, was right to say that the state which lacks the means of change lacks the means of its conservation, but that the criterion according to which we should judge the desirability of change is whether it is practically effective, and not on the basis of some abstract theory?

Sir George Young: I agree entirely.
In the amendment, we see the 92 Weatherill peers as the hereditary grit in the constitutional oyster, provoking the Government to produce a pearl of constitutional reform. Indeed, we need to press the Government to move to stage 2—proper, genuine reform. We may then have not a house of patronage, but something better than what we have lost. The amendment keeps in public service a number of people who would otherwise have been lost, bringing with them continuity, experience and judgment.
4.30 pm
I disagree with what the hon. Member for Thurrock said about the by-election arrangements. I welcome the proposals on the replacement of Weatherill peers who die. That will happen from the end of the first Session of the next Parliament if stage 2 has not been enacted by then. Until then, places will be filled by the nearest losers in last week's ballot. The ballot for the 15 Deputy Speakers


disproved the assertion that the House is run by Conservatives for Conservatives. The top two were a Cross Bencher and a Labour peer.
Originally, the Government said that by-elections should be left to Standing Orders. That would have meant that the remaining hereditary peers could have been allowed to wither on the vine and we could then have seen a quango House created by stealth. If the transitional Chamber lasts and is not to be wholly appointed, we need some means of replacing the elected peers. The amendment means that if the Government subsequently want to knock out peers who are elected, they will have to do so by primary legislation in the full glare of public debate.
In the meantime, the Bill has been a distraction for the second Chamber, whose main task has been to hold this Government to account and scrutinise this Session's massive legislative programme. Worse, the Government have sought to set House of Commons against House of Lords when the real battle today is between Parliament and the Executive. The two Chambers are allies in that battle, not enemies.
This is all being done in the name of democracy and modernising Parliament. However, the Government are not modernising Parliament but marginalising it. Parliament needs not modernisation but strengthening. As this Session draws to a close, we see a Government losing control of their legislative programme. We see a Government who never had control of the constitutional programme. They are in disarray as they choose a candidate for mayor and ignore the English dimension of devolution. They are in disarray on the second Chamber and proportional representation, on which they are walking away from their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum—all this from a party that has the nerve to lecture the country about joined-up government.
Tonight, we should say goodbye not to the hereditary peers but to this Government's irresponsible approach to the British constitution.

Mr. Benn: This is the second time the Weatherill amendment has been before the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) moved it earlier in the Session and I received a three-line Whip to vote against it. Today, I have a three-line Whip to vote in favour of it. That puts loyal party members in some difficulty, although I think that André Maurois, in his famous book "Ariel"—about his time as a French liaison officer with the British Army in the first world war—said that orders contrary in sense from officers equal in rank cancel themselves out.
The amendment is a total breach of the manifesto on which we were elected. I have to say that, because there was no provision whatever not only to allow hereditary peers to remain but to let them elect each other in perpetuity. I think that parties should take their manifestos seriously, particularly as we had an overwhelming majority. By now, we could have had what I would like to have seen: a wholly elected second Chamber.
I agree with what was said by Opposition Members about personal abuse. I see no reason to abuse any person who has inherited a peerage. It would be difficult for me to take a contrary view. Indeed, I accept that many of the

people who are hereditary peers have worked long and hard in the second Chamber. My objection to them is not their inheritance but their power. That is the question to which the Labour party has often given its attention.
As a matter of fact, I could justify my view on the ground of revenge, because on 18 February 1955, I was sitting in the Moses Room when five peers forced me out of the House of Commons, to which I had been elected, on the ground that I had a duty to go to a Chamber to which I had not been elected. However, I put that all aside.
The objectionable thing about hereditary and life peers is that neither have been elected. That is the problem: not how they get there. The national lottery could produce a second Chamber with the same difficulties. It is amazing that a House whose entire authority rests upon election—none of us is here by any reason other than the fact that people put us here—should be unable to manage to advance a credible argument for the election of the other Chamber. What makes this place different—and here I should like to argue the democratic case if it is not too controversial, although I sometimes think that it is—is that we are elected and removed by the people we represent. Because of that, we have to listen to them. I spoke about that during the Adjournment debate on this subject in the small hours of this morning. Our relationship with the electorate is the most important relationship of all. People seek out their representative; they say to me, "I have written to you, Mr. Benn, because you are my MP." There is none of that in the House of Lords, whether we are talking about life or hereditary peers. Not having to listen to people means that they can do what they like.
The prejudices of hereditary or life peers may be good or bad, but they are prejudices, and have no legitimacy or accountability. It is an insult that that should be put forward in a democratic society, even as part of a secret deal. I do not know when the negotiations with Lord Cranborne began. I read somewhere that it was before the election. Whether that is true—whether the Labour party was telling the public that it was going to get rid of the hereditary peers while Lord Cranborne was having private discussions with the then Leader of the Opposition—I do not know. Anyway, Lord Cranborne has been rewarded with a life peerage—the Cecils always end up on top.
The reality is that we were deliberately bypassed and, without being offensive—because it is not my purpose to argue in that way—I have to say that patronage is corrupting. I am not saying that corrupt deals take place, but to have the power of patronage corrupts the giver and to receive patronage corrupts the person who receives it. Surely a democratic Chamber should be able to argue that case without embarrassment, even in the presence of distinguished people who may be observing us from afar.
It took 700 years to make the House of Commons democratic. I have in previous debates cited some of the arguments that were used against extending the vote. When, before the first world war, suffragettes demanded that women should have the vote, Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, said that if women got the vote it would destroy parliamentary democracy. I have looked it up in Hansard. When the Great Reform Bill went through, the Duke of Wellington argued that extending the franchise would destroy parliamentary democracy. These phrases have been used in every period of parliamentary history.


When, in 1972, I proposed having a referendum on the European question, Jeremy Thorpe said that it would destroy parliamentary democracy. We, who rightly acquire and lose our power and authority because we are elected, should be in no doubt about the basis of parliamentary election.
I shall vote against the amendment. When the Epping amendment was moved earlier, I told the House that I would vote against it then and I shall vote against it now. I know that it will not have any impact on the outcome. However, I do not believe that there will be a second stage in my lifetime, although 1 aim to live to 100. Why should a new House of Lords, recipient of a fresh statute, get rid of itself to please Lord Wakeham, the Prime Minister or anybody else? The House of Lords will not do that.
I have seen Lord Wakeham's proposals, which were leaked to The Daily Telegraph. He thinks that some of the Lords should be elected. I was staggered at his radicalism and boldness. There is no desire in the British establishment for an elected second Chamber. The British establishment has never liked democracy in this House, and it has no intention of seeing the virus spread to a second House. Until we make that clear, we shall be muddling along with small compromises that contribute nothing to the advancement of the people's right to determine how they are governed.

Mr. Robert Jackson: In her opening remarks, the Leader of the House referred to a long journey, beginning at the start of the century. I suggest that the journey began much longer ago. One of the clichéd adjectives applied to the Bill as we reach its final stages in this debate is "historic". I should like to take up a little portion of time in the debate, as the substance of the hereditary legislative rights of the peerage passes into history, to say a few words about that history and its significance, as I see it, for this House, today and in the future.
It is a pity that much of the debate, especially speeches by Labour Members, has failed to recognise that we are touching on a fundamental matter. In his book "Germania", Tacitus describes the political institutions of our Teutonic ancestors as they were in his time, 1,900 years ago; they were already old then. He wrote:
They choose their kings on account of their nobility, their leaders on account of their valour. On smaller matters the chiefs debate, on greater matters all men, but so that those things whose final decision rests with the whole people are first handled by the chiefs".
In that account, we see the germ of the British constitution as it has survived to this day. There is a monarchy, essentially a sacred institution associated with the bloodline of a single family; thus the Queen can trace her ancestry back to Cerdic and the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England. There is a popular assembly, no doubt informally representative even in its earliest form as described by Tacitus; that is the germ of the House of Commons. Finally, there are the chiefs: the great men, leaders in war and counsellors in peace, whose shades we disturb today as we debate this measure of House of Lords reform.
To see this set out in pristine clarity, we can do no worse than to turn to the formula that prefaces the Bill, as it does all other Acts. It clearly states the constitutional basis on which we make law and sets out the historic balance between the different elements in the process of

lawmaking. It stands at the beginning of every one of our laws, which might explain why it is so little noticed. I shall read it out, so that the House can note the order and proportion of the words:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons"—
a bit of an afterthought, reflecting the late place of this House in our national history—
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows".
It is interesting to consider how and when the composition of the councils of the chiefs became hereditary. There must have been an hereditary element, even in the earliest German assemblies: the principle of sacred blood rights did not attach only to the kingship. The reception of Christianity in the sixth century brought into the king's council the presence of bishops and abbots, who were not there by hereditary right. Nevertheless, when the representatives of the commons, the burgesses and the knights of the shire, came along in the 13th century—quite late in the day—the lay element of the king's great council had long enjoyed the right of hereditary succession. As the concept of the royal council faded into that of Parliament, that became one of the principal points of difference between what became known in the 16th century as the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
So far, my account may have struck some hon. Members as being of merely antiquarian interest, but if those now frowning bear with me, I shall attempt to demonstrate its relevance to our current position, because it relates to the discussion about legitimacy which marked the speech by the Leader of the House. The reason why—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Almost everyone has to lead into an argument, but the hon. Gentleman must lead into the amendment being debated, or I shall have to stop him. He should start talking about the amendment.

Mr. Jackson: That is precisely what I want to do, because this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the issue.
The reason for the presence of the leading men in the royal councils was that property is power: even when the feudal monarchy was at its most powerful, property held from the Crown tended to be hereditary. That association between property and power draws our attention to the fundamental principle that underlay the historic House of Lords: that it is to the advantage of the realm that the most powerful men of the possessing classes should be involved in government and its responsibilities.
Throughout English history, there have been episodes of aristocratic anarchy. There was factionalism among the great men—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must speak to the


amendment. The history of these matters is extremely interesting, but it is best reserved for another debate, not this one.

Mr. Jackson: I am pursuing the subject of our debate. Legitimacy is relevant to the hereditary principle; it is at the heart of the issues that underlie the amendment. I want to continue to present my argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I tell the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go into the issues that underlie the amendment; we must discuss the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do that, I am sorry to tell him that he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Jackson: I am considering the hereditary principle, which is the subject of the amendment.

Angela Smith: I share the confusion in the House about the hon. Gentleman's comments. Is he defending the hereditary principle and claiming that it should persist today and save the House of Lords?

Mr. Jackson: I want to persist in my speech so that I can answer that question.
We have had a system that served the country well for a long time. One of the reasons for the contrast between English and continental history is that our solution to the problem of accommodating social and economic power with political power has been more successful than that in our neighbouring countries. Today, we are putting aside the remains of that great system. The amendment would preserve little more than a relic of it.
It is interesting to consider when our historic solution began to fall apart. Its failure is recent. Even today, if we were to examine the list of the 500 largest property owners in Britain, we would find that it included a striking number of peers, most of them descended from families that have held a similar position for more than a century. Until the 1960s at least, conscious efforts were made to introduce to the peerage most of the significant new power holders in business and industry.
As we approach 2000, however, we must acknowledge that we are in a different world. Our world today is not different in the way that most Labour Members and some on the Opposition Benches consider it different. The difference is not that democracy and the elective principle have triumphed, but that the rise of an industrial economy and the relative decline of agriculture, and the growing separation of control from ownership in business, have meant that property ownership has become increasingly anonymous and, at the same time, more international. The hereditary House of Lords is fading because national coherence, the national public realm and national capital are also fading.
During the debates on the Bill in this House, hon. Members have tended to condescend to the poor old hereditaries. We feel secure and justified because we have been elected. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made it clear that that was the basis of his argument. However, we make a grave mistake if we conclude that we can dismiss the principle on which the

historic House of Lords was based. That principle is infinitely older than that of one man, one vote—as I have tried, perhaps in vain, to demonstrate. OMOV, as the Labour party calls it, is a 20th century phenomenon. It is associated as much with the tragedies of 20th century totalitarianism as with the triumphs of 20th century democracies. One of the enduring facts of life will continue to be that property is power. The difference today is that, as we move into the 21st century, Britain will no longer have a constitutional mechanism for binding the ownership of property to the exercise of public responsibility.

Angela Smith: We should accept that the proposals in the Weatherill amendment are transitional. I do not accept that we have reached the end of the argument. We are at stage 1 and we shall move on to stage 2. I was grateful for the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we shall move to stage 2 as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is my neighbour, said that he was cautious about the amendment. However, it is up to hon. Members to ensure that the Leader of the House keeps her promise—I have no doubt that she will do so.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Lady hazard a guess as to when she thinks that we will reach stage 2?

Angela Smith: I do not presume to be able to answer that question; it is a matter for the Leader of the House. However, if delay is unacceptable, I am sure that hon. Members will communicate that fact to my right hon. Friend. The Liberal Democrats are ill equipped to comment about that issue as they gave us the current configuration of the House of Lords in 1911 and have not done anything further since then. I have more faith in my Government than in the Liberal Democrats.
Why should we accept the Weatherill amendment and allow peers to remain in the transitional House? Unlike the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), many of my hon. Friends and I stand by the principle that there should be no hereditary peers in the second Chamber. The arguments have been well rehearsed here and in another place. The issues were debated with more decorum here than in the other place, so I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) say that debates in the House of Lords were conducted with great decorum.
Fortunately, hon. Members' children have been far better behaved than the offspring of one of their lordships who, to the amazement of many, jumped up and down on the Woolsack. While claiming to defend tradition, he clearly showed no respect for it; while decrying the will of the elected House to be "treason", he showed no respect for democracy. In any other walk of life, such bizarre behaviour would disqualify a person from involvement in a given activity. Yet the Earl of Burford behaved in that manner in an attempt to defend his right to legislate on the basis of his birthright. It was a bit like the tantrum of a naughty child—and we all know that naughty children who throw tantrums do not get what they want.[Interruption.] Conservative Members groan; I hope that they are not defending the Earl of Burford' s actions.
The Conservative party's 1997 campaign guide was extremely illuminating on this point. I wonder whether the Conservatives were thinking of the Earl of Burford when they wrote:
An asset to democracy, hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament. They are linked to the customs and traditions that formed and shaped this country".
We could do without customs and colour such as that.
The amendment is an interesting distraction, but let us consider the legitimacy of the second Chamber as a transitional House rather than the antics of one rather bizarre peer.

Mr. Richard Allan: I agree with the hon. Lady that this amendment is about colour and tradition rather than who holds the power. Does she share my concerns that, in the foreseeable future, people will continue to serve in the upper House who have never faced an election and who cannot be removed by the great British public? That is the key difference between the two Chambers.

Angela Smith: I shall come to that point in a moment.
Given the comments of Opposition Members, I do not think that today's debate is about the quality of hereditary peers. I have not heard any criticism from Labour Members of those peers who have performed their duty to this country. On the contrary, credit has been paid to those men and women of great ability. It has been said that peers are fulfilling voluntary duties and will no longer be able to perform that service. As a former officer of the all-party group for charities and the voluntary sector, I can suggest numerous voluntary organisations that would be pleased to welcome their services.
This debate is about the legitimacy of the second Chamber, and hereditary peers give it no legitimacy. The peers would have had much greater legitimacy if they had been elected or appointed to the second Chamber on their own merits rather than appointed on the merits or otherwise of their forebears. The amendment provides a temporary reprieve. In order to pass important legislation, we have reached a temporary—I stress that word—compromise.
To be honest, I do not particularly like that compromise. In terms of the contents and principle of the Bill, I think it is unnecessary. Most agree that the principle of hereditary lawmakers is outdated and inefficient. However, our commitment to reforming the House of Lords must be viewed alongside our commitment to change and the other promises that we made to the electorate. It is not our only policy.

Mrs. Laing: I understand from her comments that the hon. Lady intends to support the amendment. However, on 15 February this year, she voted against an almost identical amendment that I proposed. How can she reconcile voting against the measure in February and for it this evening?

Angela Smith: I urge the hon. Lady to be patient, because I am coming to that point.
A compromise has been reached, but I would much prefer it if the amendment were not before the House. Reform of the House of Lords is not the only policy that the Government have. We made a commitment to the

electorate to get our policies through, and we have obligations to fulfil. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, we have to take our manifesto seriously. We cannot fail to keep our obligations to the electorate because we are pursuing only the issue of the second Chamber, which is based on those put into position by the actions of their ancestors.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: How many of the hon. Lady's constituents came up to her at the last election and said that, over and above new schools and new hospitals, the one thing that they wanted her to do was to abolish the check on the House of Commons?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman, who I know is in favour of hereditary peerages, makes my point for me. People did not want this issue to be put above the issues of health and education. That is why we have had to accept a compromise to get the Bill through without jeopardising our policies on issues such as health and education.
The nature of compromise means that not everyone is completely satisfied, and I stress that I am not completely satisfied. If everyone were satisfied, it would not be a compromise. The proposal is imperfect, but it is not the end; it is stage 1.
Whenever we debate in the Chamber, we should always have a sense of history. This issue is not just about those who were in this place before us, but about those who will come after us and how we will be viewed in the future. This debate, and the issue that we are debating, will be viewed with some incredulity by those who come after us. They will be incredulous not that the debate is taking place, but that we are holding it now and that it has taken so long to get here.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: When the Government introduced their original Bill, they set out quite clearly their view of its purpose, which was effectively to remove hereditary peers. As a result of the amendment passed in another place, sadly, the Government's purpose has been defeated and we are left with a very diminished Bill. It will certainly greatly change the upper House, but it is far removed from what I think that the Government had in mind and certainly from what Liberal Democrat Members had in mind when we argued that we would introduce and support proposals to end hereditary peerages and the powers of those who had come to the upper House solely by descent.
In the debate that we held courtesy of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who tabled an amendment when the House was considering the Bill, it was made clear that the Government's preference was to have the Bill in its original form. The Leader of the House even tonight has suggested that she would have preferred the Bill in its original form. I do not doubt that she is sincere in expressing that view, because it certainly conforms with her political history.
Even if stage 1 of the reform of the House of Lords had gone through as the Government intended, it would not have legitimised the upper House and it would not have made it a House that is appropriate for a modern democracy. Therefore, one has to ask why on earth we approached the reform in that way.
The experience of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may be called in evidence. He spoke of the attitude of the Liberal party in 1911 and earlier to votes for women and other issues. It is true that the Liberal party gutted the power of the House of Lords by reducing its role to the mere power to delay, but it did not substantially alter its membership. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the failure of the succeeding Labour Government and later Labour Governments, including the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, to effect the democratisation of the upper House. We are entitled to try to learn from that experience.
5 pm
I do not doubt that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, as a member of the Labour Government in which the issue was led by the late Dick Crossman, was firmly of the view that a democratised upper House was appropriate. What has to be said is that it was never regarded as so important that it should be given the full weight of commitment that would have been required to use powers under the Parliament Act to disrupt all other Government business, and to give it the priority over other business that would have been necessary to achieve that democratisation. We have to face that history in deciding how to bring about the democratisation of the upper House.

Mr. Tony Benn: Although the Parliament Act allows us to override obstruction of legislation by the Lords, that House has an absolute veto on statutory instruments. I do not know whether the House realises that, if the Lords vote down an instrument requiring an affirmative vote, there is nothing that the Commons can do about that.
I pay tribute to the work of the Liberal Government, because my father was a Liberal Whip at the time of the Parliament Act, so I know of the struggles that took place, but we have not ever tackled the issue since.

Mr. Maclennan: I want to avoid the trap of giving a lesson in constitutional history or seeking to be totally comprehensive in my elucidation of these issues, thereby sustaining my reputation for a somewhat academic approach. I am anxious to cut the cant.

Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should allow me to make a little progress.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is not giving way.

Mr. Maclennan: This is simply the preamble to my speech, and it seems inappropriate to add to it by allowing the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.
We have set ourselves the task of democratising the upper House. I say "we" advisedly because, before the election, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats reached agreement on this matter. I have to ask myself whether the Bill accelerates that democratisation process at all. It takes a modest step in that direction by removing a substantial number of hereditary peers, but it does no more than that. I find the Weatherill amendment, as it is called, insupportable.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, not at the moment. I am trying to develop an argument.
I do not intend to support the Weatherill amendment. In another place, my noble Friends did not support it and gave their reasons. I am not constrained by the Government's whipping arrangements and therefore feel no obligation to go into the Lobby in support of an amendment that, frankly, will produce a fairly nonsensical arrangement. However, the objective of reform will be advanced to the extent that the new House may be able to participate more constructively in the discussion of the composition and powers of its successor than could a House so hopelessly dominated by hereditary peers as is the present House of Lords.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to how the current upper House has in any way suggested in its debates or by its actions that it would be unable to co-operate with the Government in coming up with a full range of complete proposals without having to go through this halfway stage?

Mr. Maclennan: I have read reports of the debates in another place. They were not enormously constructive as to the future role or structure of the upper House. I had the sense that the noble Lords were defending their own; they were not considering the matter from the point of view of the electors and the public; they did not consider such matters as the efficacy of the control of the Executive, or the greater legitimacy of the upper House. Legitimacy is a word that does not come easily to the lips of those who are Members of a House by virtue either of patronage or of inheritance. Consequently, the idea that is central to the issue has been almost entirely neglected in the other place. That cannot be so for much longer.
I hope that, increasingly, we shall find common ground. I am very much in agreement with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), when he opened the debate for the Conservatives. We should be trying to create a legitimate upper House that is capable of holding the Executive to account. That must be the role of a proper, reformed upper House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What does the Commons do?

Mr. Maclennan: The House of Commons, by virtue of the fact that it is considerably dominated by patronage and by the substantial presence of the Government, is much less capable of holding the Executive to account than an independently elected House of Lords—or senate as we would prefer to call it—would be. For that reason,


I hope that we shall enjoy the support of several Opposition Members for the proposals that we have put to the royal commission on that subject.
I understand the Government's dilemma—in negotiations with the Cecils, it is not entirely unsurprising that they were outsmarted. However, I hope that the result will not be a second House with the structure that would be brought about if the measure were accepted. That would be indefensible in principle, and would do nothing to enhance the authority of the House of Lords with the public. It fails the first task set by the Government—of ending membership of the House of Lords by virtue of holding a hereditary peerage. For those reasons, I cannot commend the amendment to the House and I advise hon. Members to abstain.

Mr. Bill Rammell: It is pleasing to follow that clarion call for principle—in support of abstention.
I am happy and more than pleased to support the Cross-Bench amendment. In the 1997 general election, my party made a clear manifesto commitment—to seek a two-stage reform for the abolition of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. That is what the measure will achieve, because 90 per cent. of the hereditary peers will go straight away, and even the other 10 per cent.—those who have been elected to remain in the second Chamber—will also go in the sense that they will no longer be hereditary peers. Their status will change; in effect, they will become life peers and there will be no right to succession. That is sensible government and politics—the achievement of our ends through a pragmatic compromise.
We support that pragmatic compromise because, without it, the whole of the Government's legislative programme would have been delayed or blocked. The abolition of the hereditary peers is an extremely important measure, but it is not important enough to allow all our key programmes—on health, education, public transport and other matters—to be blocked. I could not, in all conscience, have told my constituents that, because we were not prepared to make a sensible compromise, we had lost legislation on significant matters that were included in our general election manifesto.

Mr. Fallon: That is the second time that the allegation has been made that, somehow, the upper House was, or has, or is, intending to block legislative programmes on health and education. What is the evidence for that allegation?

Mr. Rammell: The evidence is very clear. When the crisis in the Conservative leadership in the House of Lords first developed, unattributed briefings in numerous newspaper articles made it clear that that leadership would attempt to use reform of the second Chamber to harry, delay and block legislation. The Government would not have been right to accept that.

Mr. Gummer: How did the hon. Gentleman fail to notice that those in the other House rejected the proposed reduction in benefits for disabled people, which many Labour Members supported? Is he really suggesting that a House that has taken what to many of his hon. Friends seemed a progressive view was likely to hold up

legislation on health and education? Surely that is nothing to do with the facts. Is he believing what he reads in the newspapers rather too much?

Mr. Rammell: The former leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords said that he was prepared to act like a hooligan to block the Government's sensible reforms. Anybody who has considered the issues, listened over the years to the Conservative party and observed the way in which it has defended its vested interest in the House of Lords, would draw the conclusion that it would have used its clear majority in the other place to block sensible Government reforms.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Perhaps we can nail this nonsense that there would not have been a concerted effort to block legislation in the Lords. Has my hon. Friend forgotten that the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords was sacked for entering into negotiations to achieve a consensus, and precisely because he would not follow a campaign of outright opposition, as the Conservative Front-Bench team in the Commons wanted?

Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had forgotten that point, which shows just how long we have been debating the issues.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is mixing his facts. First, he has confused Lord Onslow with Lord Strathclyde. Secondly, I should put on record, as did Lord Cranborne both before and after leading the Conservatives in the House of Lords, that he abided by the Salisbury convention.

Mr. Rammell: I have certainly seen quotations from Hansard in the other place that have clearly shown that Conservative peers were not prepared to abide by the Salisbury convention if it did not suit their purposes. I remember specifically one Conservative peer arguing that it was a constitutional outrage to suggest such changes.

Hon. Members: "Who?"

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) to say that he remembers quotations, but not to provide them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate; it has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member cites a quotation, do not Hansard Reporters ask for the exact version and, if it cannot be provided, it does not go on the record?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) quote anybody.

Mr. Rammell: I say explicitly that, following the debate, I shall be more than happy to provide the direct quotation and the exact time when the Conservative peer made the outrageous accusation. The number of interventions and the hostility that I am receiving from Conservative Members reminds me of the saying of the colonel in "Dad's Army":
They don't like it up 'em.
We are fundamentally challenging the position and interests of the Conservative party.

Mr. Peter Bradley: He was not a colonel; he was a lance corporal. Rank is everything in this place.

Mr. Rammell: I promoted him by mistake.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke in support of 100 per cent. direct elections to the second Chamber. I imagine that most Labour and Liberal Democrat Members would instinctively support such a proposal. However, the more that we consider the issue and imagine the results, the more difficult it becomes to envisage such a second Chamber not challenging the supremacy of the House of Commons—not in acting as a legitimate check on the Executive or reasonably and legitimately asking the Commons to revise its proposed legislation, but simply because Members of the second Chamber, who would have a different electoral mandate, fundamentally disagreed with the Government of the day.
I say honestly that I have not worked all my political life for the election of a Labour Government—other Members are in exactly the same position—to see their programme stymied and blocked by a second Chamber that thinks that, simply on the grounds of politics, it is legitimate to oppose my party's election manifesto commitments.

Mr. Allan: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in a debate that is properly for the reformed second Chamber. I simply point out that two elected Chambers seems to be the global norm in a bicameral system. Everybody else gets by with two elected Chambers, including the United States.

Mr. Rammell: The Chambers in the United States have very different functions from those proposed and debated here.
The concern that I am expressing about a 100 per cent. elected Chamber is not some novel, new Labour concern. The Brice convention in 1917-18, under Lloyd George, rejected the option of a directly elected second Chamber on the ground that it would inevitably become a rival to the House of Commons. The same concerns were voiced in 1948—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be careful. We are debating amendments that are far more narrow than his comments. We should try to concentrate on the Weatherill amendment.

Mr. Rammell: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely responding to some of the points raised by Conservative Members.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), for whom I have great respect—he knows that I agree with him on matters European—asked why I am in favour of a two-stage process. It is because history teaches us not to trust members of the Conservative party on this issue. Throughout the past 89 years, Conservatives have said, "Of course we are in favour of the notion of a reformed second Chamber, but we need to see what will follow it." The lack of consensus on a second stage has then been used as a means to block reform and the abolition of the hereditary peerage.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman had a leg that gave him pain, would he think it sensible if someone suggested that it should be chopped off before it was decided what should be put in its place? No, he would want to know first what was on offer instead of his defective leg. The hon. Gentleman is offering the House a curious concept: we will get rid of what we have got—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), has passed between you and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and between the hon. Gentleman and a Conservative Member who was intervening. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall deal with the things that I see and hear. At the moment, I am trying to deal with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose intervention is too long. The best thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Rammell: Let me answer the point of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, by saying that, by agreeing now on the first stage of reform, we shall concentrate minds on achieving the second stage. The past 89 years of history show that, if we abolish hereditary peers now, we are far more likely to get second stage reform than would otherwise be the case.
I hear protestations from Conservative Members—

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: I shall finish the point; then I will give way.
I hear protestations from Conservative Members that their integrity is being impugned and that of course they are in favour of reform. I would not ask you to believe me or believe the Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall quote to you Lord Chalfont in a debate in the House of Lords, who said:
One of the things about which I am sorry is that the Conservative government, when they were in power, did not take some steps towards reforming this House."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1999; Vol. 606, c. 225.]


The fact that the Conservative party never took those steps, and certainly never did so in 18 years in government, undermines the Conservatives' claims that they are in favour of reform.

Mr. Tyrie: Lord Chalfont is an ex-Labour Minister who now sits on the Cross Benches. As for the hon. Gentleman's wider points, for the better part of 100 years, the Conservative party has been proposing forms of direct or indirect election to the second Chamber. For much of that period, the Labour party has been proposing complete abolition of the second Chamber, and has done so in three manifestos since 1911

Angela Smith: Do not quote manifestos.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I urge the House to get back to the amendments. We must deal with the amendments before us.

Mr. Rammell: I shall follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
An accusation has been made that the Labour party and this Labour Government are unfairly using their position to create a significantly increased number of life peers. That fails to take account of what has happened over the years, with the huge Conservative majority in the second Chamber. Are Conservative Members arguing that we should continue to accept that we shall permanently be in a minority position vis-a-vis the Conservative party in the House of Lords?
When we are judging which party is being dogmatic and trying to use the situation in a partisan way, we might make an instructive comparison. We have a Labour Government and a Labour Prime Minister who, for the first time, are giving up the rights of patronage, and are seeking a second Chamber in which no party has an overall majority. Contrast that with the Conservative party in 1979, with Lady Thatcher as Prime Minister. Despite the fact that there was already a significant majority of Conservative peers over Labour peers, she sought to increase the disparity between the Conservative party and the Labour party. That shows which party and which Government are being straight and fair on these issues.

Mrs. Beckett: As the last intervention suggested that the Conservative party's bona fides were demonstrated by having been said to be in favour of some form of different system—perhaps election to the House of Lords—for such a long time, I remind my hon. Friend that, on paper, since 1948, the Conservative party has been in favour of no party having a majority in the House of Lords, but it has added to that majority ever since.

Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. In responding to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am very conscious that the word hypocrisy is not allowed to be bandied around in the Chamber, so I choose my words carefully. She makes her point very forcefully.

The nub of the amendments—

Mrs. Laing: rose—

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Rammell: I shall not give way again, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The nub of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and of some of the concerns expressed by Conservative Members, is that this is not a two-stage process—that the Government will complete the first stage and then things will remain the same for ever and a day. I honestly do not believe that to be the case.
The Government are arguing, on the record, that this is a temporary solution. We are today abolishing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. The Wakeham commission will report by the end of the year, and we have committed ourselves to setting up a Committee of the two Houses afterwards. Given the sequence of events that will flow from that set of propositions, I find it inconceivable that the Labour party will not have to give an explicit commitment, in its general election manifesto, to the second stage of reform. Therefore the Conservatives' accusations are without foundation.
Finally, I would return—

Mrs. Laing: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's passion against the hereditary principle from the arguments that he has made. I can also understand why, despite that, he may well support the Lords amendment this evening out of expediency; but why did he not vote against it when I proposed it on 16 February, when he was free to do so?

Mr. Rammell: The hon. Lady well knows the answer. It is about tactics and practical politics and government. Had we agreed to that amendment at that stage, that would have reinforced those Conservative peers who wanted to block our proposals for reform. The Bill would have returned to this place and, because it was not in its original form, we could not have enforced the Parliament Acts. That seems to me to be perfectly sensible.

Mrs. Laing: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is consistent. So why did he not vote against it in February? I have just checked, and he did not.

Mr. Rammell: Because I want the issue to be resolved once and for all, after 89 years, and I believe that the Cross-Bench amendment is the most practical and effective way to achieve that.
I finish by returning to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the common sense that the hereditary peers had shown down the years. In fact, their record has been based not on common sense but on a biased view of life and a degree of political partisanship that is clear for everyone to see, because, by and large, the hereditary peers come from one class, one interest group, with one set of values, and they predominantly support one political party.


I am more than happy to pay tribute to the service of some hereditary peers, but please, please, please do not ask me to weep for the ending of a one-sided, partisan one-party racket that has been taking place in this country for far too long.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Parts of that speech by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), with its class-based attacks, sounded slightly nauseating. I want to place on the record right away my tribute to the service of the hereditary peers, who have done an outstanding job. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who began his remarks with a similar tribute.
The old House did work, after a fashion. It was imperfect, but that is true of many British institutions that have grown up over the years, and we should not expect it to be perfect. Now that it has been fundamentally shaken up, I believe that, in the 21st century, there will be no logical stopping-off place short of a democratically elected second Chamber. The majority of Opposition Members probably believe that, and I suspect that a very large minority of Labour Members believe it, too.
However, I am afraid that that does not enable me to support the Blair-Cranborne deal, which has been renamed the Weatherill amendment because Lord Weatherill is a Cross-Bencher and it sounds slightly more cheerful. I shall explain why I shall not support the deal, but first I want to say a few words in support of amendment (b), which stands in my name and those of a good number of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We have always been told that the Bill is an interim Bill, yet it has never contained even the briefest reference to stage 2 of reform. However, now there is one. Subsection (3) of the Lords amendment says that peers who satisfy the Weatherill conditions shall be excepted throughout their life
until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary".
I wonder how that got into the legislation. I wonder what the Government have in mind. We were not enlightened at all by the Minister as to what that Act of Parliament might contain.
I have two views on that wording—one optimistic, one pessimistic. Perhaps in a minute the Minister will tell me which one I should assume to be right. One view is that the Government have started to think seriously about plans for an elected, or largely elected, second Chamber; there are a few reasons for thinking that they might have gone down that road. As I said, there may be a majority in the House for such a proposal. I strongly suspect that there would be, on a free vote. Eighty per cent. of the population support that approach in all opinion polls. Even Lord Wakeham is feeling the need to nod in that direction.
Moreover, that approach is logical. If the Executive wants to create an effective second Chamber, democracy is the only sensible route to take, for only an elected Chamber can hope to challenge the Executive in this place.
However, I am a pessimist. I expect that my pessimism will be confirmed in a moment.

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that he is straying down an unnecessary diversionary route. I remind him that the proposal was not made by the Government. It was put forward in the House of Lords by a group of Cross-Bench peers, including Lord Weatherill.
I understand that the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred were included to make it clear that this section of the amendment does not confer membership of the Lords in perpetuity to those who are covered by the provision. It gives them legitimacy in the transitional House, but only in the transitional House. One could argue that it is a belt-and-braces approach, referring to the fact that a later Act of Parliament could remove them. That, as I understand it, is the reason for the wording.

Mr. Tyrie: I hope that the right hon. Lady understands her own legislation. The idea that it was drafted by a group of Cross-Benchers in a fit of absence of mind, while the Government hardly knew what was going on, and that the Government will now vote for this rather defective measure is absurd, as is the argument that the origins of the idea lay anywhere else but in meetings between Lord Cranborne and the Prime Minister. It is well documented that back-room deals were done time and again by Lord Cranborne and the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Richard, in order to secure the Executive's objectives.
It is scandalous to suggest that this is not a piece of Government legislation. Of course it is. That is why there is a three-line Government Whip to get it through, and why I am pessimistic. The right hon. Lady has made me even more pessimistic about the purpose of the wording of subsection (3). My best guess is that, as she implied, it is a threat to the 92 survivors who have made it through the Blair-Cranborne deal into the lifeboat. The bracketed words tell them that they do not even have life peerages, and that they could be chucked overboard at any moment.
So I come to the wider question of whether the Blair-Cranborne amendment strengthens or weakens the interim House. If the 92 peers could be chucked out at any moment, it would weaken the House. The hereditaries who remain have heard their death sentence read out and seen some colleagues' blood run, and the lucky few have been given a stay of execution. I do not believe that those peers will want to make trouble for the Executive or rock the boat. The Lords have been
bought off by the short-term survival of 92 hereditaries who are virtually hostages for good behaviour.
Those are the words of a hereditary peer in a letter in The Daily Telegraph today.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend may be right, but there is another explanation as well, which is given by many of the 92 hereditaries. They believe that they can still make a contribution in what would otherwise be a House of cronies. It is unthinkable that peers whose families have been in the other place for up to 500 years are impressed by the prospect of another two year in a House of cronies, just because it gives them some power or prestige. Will my hon. Friend at least do


them the credit of taking them at their own estimation and say that, although he may disagree with them, their motives are entirely honourable?

Mr. Tyrie: I think that the motives of those peers are honourable, and I hope that they will act in that way, but I fear the worst. I fear that they will be all too easily cowed by the threat that they will be booted out if they misbehave. The same goes for the lifers, as they now have an interest in hanging on to the remaining hereditary peers. They know that once the hereditaries have gone, the next thing that will come their way is democracy, which is as much a threat to the life peers as the Bill is to the hereditaries.
I fear that there will be much synthetic opposition from the interim House. There will be some genuine attempts to make it work, but I do not believe that it will amount to a genuine second Chamber playing an effective role—quite the opposite. Once the amendment is on the statute book, the Government and all peers will have a vested interest in minimal further change. Writing the amendment into the Bill will make change less, not more, likely.
There are many other reasons for voting against the amendment. It is "riddled with anomalies", an "artificial fix, a sop", or "a gigantic Pooh trap". Those are the words of three hereditary peers speaking in debate in the House of Lords. They use colourful language in another place—the Official Report is well worth reading.
As for the election rules and the rules of procedure, Lord Mancroft said:
It is ludicrous, it is a farce, it's a complete joke".
He rather spoiled it by going on to say that he would none the less stand for election as one of the 92 remaining hereditaries, "but only reluctantly."
The Blair-Cranborne amendment has nothing to do with what is right for the constitution and everything to do with an understandable struggle for survival by some hereditaries, and a determination by the Executive to minimise any checks to its authority from another place.
It is insulting to the electorate in the 21st century that part of our legislature will be chosen by electoral colleges of 92 hereditary peers. That proposition contains many absurdities, but I shall list just a few.
The electoral colleges that are being created mean that a couple of Liberal or Labour hereditaries will be able to choose who should replace one of their number if he or she dies. Those places in the legislatures will be even more rotten boroughs than Old Sarum or the one whose name I forget, which disappeared into the sea—

Mr. Gummer: As it is in my constituency, I can tell my hon. Friend that Dunwich has not yet disappeared into the sea, and those who live there are, I am happy to say, staunch voters for me.

Mr. Tyrie: I hope that the rest of my right hon. Friend's constituency does not disappear into the sea for a long time. I am always grateful for his interventions.
No provision has been made for the possibility that one of the remaining hereditaries may wish to move from one party group to another. Under the interim arrangements, it is impossible to change parties. I understand that there was not even a serious debate about the matter.
So there is to be some semblance of a legislature—I am not sure whether the Government want a serious legislature—but no proper scrutiny of the election system. We would find that unacceptable in almost any other country. The Clerk of the Parliaments will have the final say on whether the election was held properly and in any dispute about the rules. That is why I tabled an amendment to subsection (6).
I understand that none of the procedure in an election or a by-election for one of those places in the interim Chamber is justiciable. The courts can have no say. If there is a dispute about an election to this place, we can go to the courts, which can scrutinise what has happened. That remedy will be unavailable for those places in the interim Chamber.
We are witnessing a mockery of the second Chamber. The proposals are as unworkable as they are unjustifiable. It is demeaning to the electorate to be asked to put up with that. It is demeaning to all hon. Members that we are being asked to vote for it. It would be a supreme irony if we saw tonight one of the largest majorities in this Parliament, with three-line Whips operating on both sides, for a measure that probably commands less respect and support than any brought before the House in living memory.

Mr. Winnick: We know the hon. Gentleman's views about a democratically elected second Chamber, and we respect those views, even though I do not share his sentiments. Did he listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who made it clear that he believed the hereditary principle to be more important than the democratic principle, and derided democracy, saying that it was the result of the totalitarian age? That was hardly a speech in favour of democratic principles and parliamentary democracy, to which the Opposition are supposedly committed.

Mr. Tyrie: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention astonishing. That is not my view. I am giving my view and other hon. Members have theirs, but half the people eligible to do so signed an early-day motion in my name that supports an elected second Chamber. I had discussions with many of my party's Front Benchers and I can assure him that there is widespread support there too. I do not know when my party will come out in favour of an elected second Chamber, but I am reasonably confident that it will do so before the Labour party.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I made my speech. Does he agree that that account of what I said is an absolute travesty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends agree with me. I forgive the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for that travesty because I am afraid I was unable to deliver my speech in the way that I should have liked to have done and it is quite clear that that has caused misunderstanding on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend has fought his corner well and I should perhaps have made a similar remark on his behalf—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the Chair for keeping the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in good order.

Mr. Tyrie: We should have had single-stage reform; the two-stage process is quite ridiculous. It is a disgraceful, unjustifiable farce and if that is what the Government mean by—

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie: No. If that is what the Government mean by modernisation of the constitution, we can do without it. It seems to me that the modern last-ditchers are sitting on the Treasury Bench, delaying further fundamental reform. Now we know what the Prime Minister really meant when he talked about the forces of conservatism, for his Government are keeping the second Chamber in the hands of the few rather than the many. In fact, they are placing it in the hands of the even fewer.
The Prime Minister may talk about wanting to create a young country, but he acts as if he wants to hang on to—

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Tyrie: No, I shall not give way.
The Prime Minister acts as if he is hanging on to an old Chamber.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Tyrie: I have said that I shall not give way.
I believe that the Government are rigging the constitution. The right hon. Lady had the effrontery to suggest that the Bill will resonate down the centuries. If it resonates at all, it will do so as a Bill that constituted a disgraceful fiddling and rigging of the British constitution. If the Government carry on in such a way, they will be seen as one of the greatest-ever mess-makers in respect of the British constitution. Deals such as that done on the amendment behind closed doors at No. 10 give politicians and British politics a bad name. I, for one, shall not support it.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am pleased to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), which also stands in my name. It would remove the ability of the rump of hereditary peers to self-propagate in perpetuity by means of by-election. Such a process has its own inherent absurdity, but that is not a distinguishing feature when considered in the context of the Bill. The real vice of the proposal is that it undoubtedly appears to endow the existence of the rump of 90 hereditary peers with a measure of permanence.
According to the Bill, by-elections will occur only on death. I have had a good look at the 90 self-anointed, or self-appointed, recipients of this electoral gain and they all seem pretty fit to me. Therefore, it must be clear that the Bill at least envisages a period of years—perhaps many years—the so-called transitional arrangement is repealed. That fuels the fear and trepidation felt on both sides of the House that the Bill will become not an instrument for reform, but an

instrument for reaction. There is not the slightest doubt that it manifestly, dramatically and obviously increases the power of patronage by removing the countervailing powers of the hereditary peers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) rightly pointed out, patronage is always the handmaiden of corruption.
5.45 pm
The continued existence of 90 hereditary peers is a wholly inadequate safeguard against that corruption, but the problem appears to be that, as time passes, the existence of such a rump will be perceived to be an excuse for the maintenance of the status quo.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman argues that patronage corrupts. To take that a step further, is he suggesting that promotion to the Front Bench in the Labour party should be achieved by election, not patronage?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Patronage always tends to corrupt. [Interruption.] Certainly not. Patronage, in certain circumstances, is a necessary vice. In other cases, it is not, but the tendency to corrupt is counter-balanced in the House by the fact that all Members, whatever Bench they sit on, have the mandate of their own electorate. That is the safeguard here, but it will not be introduced to the other Chamber.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has signed up to his own self-denying ordinance as to the number and type of peers that he proposes to create. By my calculations, that still leaves him with about 100 to go, so all is not lost in Camelot. He is a luminous and beautiful human being, and I have not the slightest doubt that he will live by that ordinance, but, like all Prime Ministers, he is ephemeral and will pass away in due course. The Bill contains no guarantee whatever that the transitional period will not, in the fullness of time, achieve permanence.
In urging my right hon. Friend to consider adopting the amendment, may I sound a mild word of warning? Governments are rarely put to the sword; almost always, in the due course of time, they fall on their own. The self-inflicted wound, which is most likely to do for this otherwise outstanding Administration, is the public perception of over-rigorous political control. There is no greater exemplification of that than the arbitrary donation of rank and favour by the process of patronage. We are looking at the Achilles heel of the Government, which must be addressed.
We have tabled our amendment so that the Government, by adopting it, can show that we are not embarking on a permanent process, but are on the way to real reform. As far as I am concerned—if I may trespass on your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that reform means abolition of the House of Lords. As far as the House is concerned, we do not need a royal commission to tell us that an elected Chamber and a Chamber arrived at by the process of patronage do not both fulfil a democratic process. Let us have done with them, once and for all, and let us take to ourselves the task of providing the checks and the curbs on the Executive. Let us understand that the continued existence of a House of Lords is an alibi, and only an alibi, for our


own inadequacies. I commend to my right hon. Friend at least the consideration of what I hope is a helpful amendment that will improve the Bill immeasurably.

Mr. Gummer: May I return to the presentation made in support of one of the amendments by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? He recommended that the House look on democracy in its purest form, but I wonder whether we are rather overdoing it. One remembers that he was removed from his former constituency by the democratic vote. The electorate threw him out, so what did he do? He did not remain to fight the seat, in order to regain it—

Mr. Winnick: Nor did you.

Mr. Gummer: I will return to that parallel. The right hon. Gentleman found another seat, to which he was more likely to be elected. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do: indeed, I have done it myself. I shall not press the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), because I remember whence he came and where he went.
Those who chose the right hon. Member for Chesterfield as the candidate comprised a small, self-elected group. They chose the Labour candidate in a constituency where the Labour candidate was bound to win. The difference between us is that in my constituency every member of the Conservative party has a vote, and a large number of people were kind enough to choose me. Perhaps those who speak so glibly of democracy ought to look a little more carefully at the various differentiations that appear to be made when people are elected either to the House of Commons or, through the new mechanism, to the House of Lords.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to disturb the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, but may I issue a gentle reminder? If he thinks that those who selected my right hon. Friend—or, indeed, him—imagined that the selection was for a safe seat, I can only say that he has wholly forgotten the circumstances of the Chesterfield by-election.

Mr. Gummer: I note that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has sat there ever since, relatively safely. Moreover, he is leaving of his own volition, not by the choice of the electorate. I am not sure that what I am saying is so far from the truth.
I think that, in discussions such as this, we are sometimes a little extreme in our adherence to theory. The House might do better to consider fact—and the fact is that it is normal for one who proposes a change to suggest what will follow that change. Indeed, that is not only normal but, I think, universal. The right hon. Lady has had some difficulty in defending her case against her own side, not because she is not elegant and eloquent, but because her case is not very good; and her case is not very good not just because of the amendment, but because the Bill is in two stages when it ought to be in one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is discussing the amendments, not the Bill.

Mr. Gummer: In that sense, the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is entirely

right. He has brought to our attention a fundamental problem that lies at the heart of the Bill, and, although I think that his amendment is wrong, I honour him for recognising that mistake that at the heart of the Bill.
The amendment is wrong because the hon. and learned Gentleman is applying theory to what ought to be practice. Here we are in a society that has found it very difficult to discover what ought to constitute a second Chamber. We have had a perfectly good system up to now, which I defend. I am one of those who see no great need to change what works. It is an old-fashioned view, and no doubt the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) would counter it with theory; but I still maintain that our second House has worked extremely well. Indeed, by and large it has given a more difficult time to Conservative Governments than to Labour Governments. The Leader of the House may laugh, but that is a matter of fact. If she counts the number of amendments that have been made and notes the changes that have been made over many years, she will see that I am right. She must accept, as a matter of fact, that the House of Lords has been tougher with Conservative Governments than with Labour Governments.

Mrs. Beckett: I can only say that, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a matter of fact, he has seen an entirely different set of statistics from the statistics available to me. In recent years, on average, the House of Lords has defeated a Conservative Government some 13 times a year; the last Labour Government were defeated some 68 times a year.
I accept that the last Labour Government had a very small majority, and, sometimes, no majority. I believe that the current Labour Government, who have a massive majority, were defeated 38 times during the last Session, and that 33 of those defeats were due solely to the votes of Tory hereditary peers. The notion that the House of Lords is tougher on Conservative Governments is by no means borne out by the facts.

Mr. Gummer: I do not think the right hon. Lady is right about that. The truth is clear, not just from the published statistics but from the comments of independent, non-Conservative historians. However, I am happy for the right hon. Lady to say what she thinks, because I doubtless shall not convince her.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. The hon. Lady has not been present for much of the debate.
The House of Lords enables second thoughts to be had, and that is reasonable. What we are discussing now is whether it is reasonable for it to be done by those who are more than place men and women. I personally consider the hereditary system to be much more justifiable than a system of place men. I find it difficult to understand how it can be more democratic to be in the House of Lords because a politician has decided that one ought to be there than to be there because of who one's father was. If one politician is deciding on all those who are to go into the House of Lords, while a large number of fathers are producing sons, I am not sure that there is not a better argument for the hereditary peerage.
What the House of Commons has been offered is not a reform. All that it has been offered is the chance of placating a number of Labour Back Benchers who are upset that the Government have not been able to implement a full-blooded socialist economic policy and give them something to be cheerful about. The abolition of the House of Lords is part of a series of policies led by a Government who know that they can placate those who do not like their economic policies with a series of measures that are class-based and class-ridden.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), with whom I agree on a number of issues, gave the game away, as I am afraid he always does. At the end of his speech, it all came out: the same attitudes, and the same concepts. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has ever listened to a debate in the House of Lords. The idea that its Members all have the same concepts and the same attitudes cannot possibly be maintained, not just in general but in particular.

Mr. Rammell: My point was that, by and large, the hereditary peers come from the same background, and have supported one political party over the years—the right hon. Gentleman's party. That is what is fundamentally unfair and unsustainable about them.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that we are discussing the amendments.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Harlow referred to the amendments in another part of his speech. I was commenting on the part in which he said that hereditary peers always had the same attitudes and the same views, which is manifestly not true.
What we are now discussing is a proposal enabling us to retain some hereditary peers. I am in favour of that, because it means that the second House will not consist entirely of place men, which must be a good thing; but I do not like the way in which it has been arrived at. I think that the explanation advanced by the hon. Member for Harlow was pretty bad from all our points of view. He said that he did not like it, that it was not sensible, but that he and his colleagues thought that it would be a better way of shoving through a lot of Bills. He could not prove that those Bills would not have been passed otherwise; indeed, the opposite appears to have been true. The only peers whom he could mention in that connection seemed not to be the same to whom he had been referring. He gave no quotation. I do not know what Hansard will do: I am longing to see the bit of paper that will be sent to him, on which he will be able to specify whom he meant.

6 pm

Mr. Rammell: I am happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman. The specific quotation to which I was referring was from Baroness Young, who said:
I believe … that it is a constitutional outrage to use a manifesto"—
which was put forward during a general election—
to make a major constitutional change."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 943.]

That statement underlines the degree of unreasonableness of some Conservative peers in the House of Lords.

Mr. Gummer: That is an interesting argument. That quotation is meant to prove that the House of Lords would have stopped Bills on health and education. It has about as much connection to that as the climate change levy has to the reduction in the number of tonnes of carbon in the air: it is totally unconnected. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself, particularly as he said that the quotation referred to the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, which it did not, and then that it referred to someone else, which it did not. He has now found it and it does not have any relevance at all. What Hansard will do about that I do not know.
The Labour party is uncomfortable about the amendments because, although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have rightly not allowed us to talk about the generality of the Bill, they go to its heart. They draw attention to the fact that the Government propose abolition without an alternative. Any of the passing decisions that are made are unsatisfactory because they are but partial and do not address the real issue.
Although I do not agree with the solution of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), he is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that the Leader of the House has not got it right. We think the same; our solutions are different. What she should do, although, of course, she will not, any more than she will accept his amendment, is say that, in the light of the amendments, she has had a conversion on the road to Damascus—that she has recognised that it is a constitutional outrage to propose the abolition of a second House without proposing its alternative.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The reason why the Government will not do that is because they know that the people will always favour change until confronted with the alternative.

Mr. Gummer: That is the last point that I want to come to. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the real issue. I listened with great care to the Leader of the House's explanation of why we are where we are. She gave an historic—

Mr. Leigh: Histrionic.

Mr. Gummer: Not histrionic. She gave an historic view. She suggested that, because it had taken us so long to come to this point, it was reasonable to accept what we now had. Her real answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock was that, because it had taken so long to get here, we may as well accept what we had. I wonder why she has not looked at why we did take so long to get here. The reason is simply that no alternative to the system that we have has found favour with Parliament.
No alternative will find favour with Parliament because there are different views. There are those hon. Members who support the amendment because they do not want an elected House of Lords. Then there are those who support the amendment because they do not want a second House at all. Then there is the hon. Member who supports his amendment because he does want an elected House of


Lords. Then there are the Conservative Members who support the amendment because it is better than what we would have without the amendment.
It is the most miserable collection of supporters for an amendment that I have ever heard of. All of us are voting for it because everything else is worse, but, then, that is true of the Bill as a whole. It is stuck in front of us because there is no alternative. That is serious; it is a constitutional outrage. We are discussing the constitution of the United Kingdom, which has no written constitution and needs its checks and balances. We need those who are not cloned one after the other at a particular moment in time, but who think independently and differently.
One can argue that the House of Lords does not fulfil that role entirely and that we should have a change, but one must argue what that change should be. The hon. Member for Thurrock did at least argue what it should be. In that, he is different from the Leader of the House, who struggled through her speech because she knew that its content was less powerful than its language. She knew that she really did not have a case.
When we go into the Division Lobby, we should support the deal with the House of Lords. There are various reasons why. My own is that it at least retains something that is not in the hands of the Prime Minister; that is a good thing. I will vote for it because it retains some of the hereditary element. I will vote for it because it has some historic continuity—that is a good thing—and because it retains something about which we should think seriously: subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity was invented as a concept by the popes when they were trying to deal with the danger of concentrating all power in one place. Listening to the Labour party, I believe that it has that fault in spades. It really does believe that there is only one way, only one method and only one place where any power should be—over there. That is not true. A society is better run when, even if it is not entirely rational, power is spread a bit, with the opportunity for different people to make different comments about different things.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will finish my speech.
Over the years, many of the discussions in the House of Lords have been helpful and have contributed very much. The reason why they have contributed very much is precisely the one that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield found so embarrassing: people spoke for themselves in their own person and did not constantly look over their shoulder at others.
We have to do that. It is right; that is why we are here. We should not think of our role in any other way, but that does not mean that everyone who contributes to the legislative system should always have precisely that legitimacy. All the people who do not want an elected House of Lords had better recognise that no other system is as free from opposition as the odd system that we have had up to now.
The only alternative is to put in the hands of a very small number of people—namely, one—the appointment of all those who will make the decisions up there. If we want a collection of clones even more clonic than Labour Members—who are elected—it will be the place men

peers in the new House of Lords, as directed by this modernising Government. It is not modernisation. It is the sort of patronage that would have looked out of place and out of date in the 18th century. It is not moving forward. It is moving backwards. At least in the earlier patronage, more than one person made the decision and patronage was found in more than one place. Instead, we are voting for a new second House that will be entirely in the hands of one man, or woman.
The only thing that stands between that and a more sensible system is the group of a few hereditary peers who are to be elected, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who did not support that; I am very much in favour of it. I am sorry only that there are not more of them, so that they can stand out against the constant list of people who have done something and are being paid for it by being put into the House of Lords, introduced three a week to ensure that the only thing that matters is the political balance.
I disagree with the reasons that the hon. Member for Harlow gave for supporting the Government amendment. I do not think that all political decisions are about political balance. The view that we should choose people simply because they are on one side or the other is old-fashioned and pretty nasty.
I like the House of Lords because, very often, many peers who say that they are Conservatives vote with Labour, and many socialists are tough enough to disagree with the current Prime Minister—unlike the Back Benchers in this place, except for the hon. and learned Member for Medway. Most of the Back Benchers in this place do what they are told. I should like to have a House of Lords that never did what it was told. The more hereditary peers we have, the more likely we are to have such a House.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I have never before in the Chamber heard so many weasel words from an experienced politician. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) knows that every attempt to reform our constitutional system, and the House of Lords in particular, has foundered on the inability of the political parties to agree on the second stage. He also knows very well that Conservative Members, who do not have the audacity to defend the hereditary principle, are hiding behind the wispy smokescreen of objecting to two-stage reform.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who left the Chamber very shortly after his speech, talked about demolition and construction, saying that it was very unusual to demolish an edifice before drawing up plans to rebuild it. However, if the structure is not only ancient but decrepit and dangerous, it would be very sensible to demolish it, regardless of whether plans are on the drawing board to redevelop it.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal used a similar metaphor, questioning whether it would be sensible to cut off one's leg if it was injured and causing pain. I say yes. If a leg is infected, gangrenous and threatens the rest of the body—political or otherwise—it would be very sensible to cut it off, and there is much precedent for doing so.
The House of Lords will be a better place in transition than it has been under the current arrangements. In the transitionary period, it still may not be entirely legitimate


but it will certainly be less illegitimate than it has been. It will also hold the promise of a modern Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Conservative Members reveal their own prejudices—they cannot abide the word "modern".
We had a lecture from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who took us back to the days of the Teutons and said that we should follow their example of burgeoning democracy. I do not know whether he was talking about the Huns or the Vandals, but their commitment to democracy was not half as impressive as their commitment to demolition.
We need a Parliament that, in both its Houses, is modern and reflects both the composition and the concerns and aspirations of our community. A transitional Chamber will also promise further reform, giving way to a relevant second Chamber that commands respect and serves the public at least as well as, and probably better than, the current institution has done for the past 1,000 years.
The current arrangements are unacceptable in any circumstances. In the course of his lecture, the hon. Member for Wantage—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to defend himself, should I misconstrue his comments—seemed to suggest that a valuable aspect of the other place is that many or most of its Members are men of property. He seemed to say that with property should go power and the right to transfer that power within a family from one generation to the next. There is no logic in that. How does that conform to the democratic principle or deliver justice? What is the justification for that system?
The hon. Gentleman was correct in his description of the House of Lords as a place dominated by hereditary peers who are propertied and come from the same social background.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have frequently told the House today, we should concentrate on this group of amendments. That is what the hon. Gentleman should be doing.

Mr. Bradley: I am trying to argue that we should support amendments producing a transitionary Chamber, in order to create a more democratic upper House than we have now. The provisions will create an upper House without vested interests and without, as is currently the case, a block vote against the Government of the day, who are seeking quite legitimately to exercise their democratic mandate and pursue policies spelled out in their manifesto.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman could certainly argue that the Bill and Lords amendment No. 1 will provide for a different Chamber, but how can he argue that either will provide for a transitional Chamber? Where in the Bill or the amendment is there any commitment or promise to create a reformed Chamber?

Mr. Bradley: At the beginning of his speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) talked about a "measure of

permanence". I was hoping to be able to challenge him on that expression and ask him if it did not mean temporary, what would constitute a measure of permanence. The Bill's clear intention is to move, in two orderly stages, to a comprehensively reformed upper Chamber. 1 do not understand why the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has any difficulty with that.
I also suggest that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and other Conservative Members have been entirely opportunistic and unprincipled in their opposition to the Bill. Do they want a reformed upper Chamber? In both today's and previous debates, I have had great difficulty in defining exactly what Conservative Members stand for on the issue. If they support a reformed upper Chamber, what did they do in their 18 years in government to bring it about?
It is extraordinary that we should be hearing arguments against a transitional Chamber from Members such as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who belong to a party that has waited 1,000 years for change but now want change to be accomplished at a gallop. They have waited a millennium for change to our constitution and political system, but want it to be completed in the twinkling of an eye. There is a tradition among Conservative Members, and their Tory forebears, of opposition to constitutional reform. They opposed it in 1832, in 1867 and in 1884, until they were forced to accept it.
Today, some Conservative Members have been talking about one man, one vote as if we did not have women's suffrage—which they also opposed. They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into every constitutional reform that we have ever had in Britain.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No; I should like to make a little progress and keep my comments brief, so that other hon. Members will be able to speak.
Conservative Members support the upper Chamber because they enjoy an in-built majority in that place.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Bradley: No, not on that point; but the hon. Gentleman may intervene on the next one, if he cares to.
If Labour had enjoyed for just 10 years the type of majority in the House of Lords that the Conservatives have enjoyed for 100 years, the previous Government would have abolished the House of Lords in one fell swoop.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No; I am sorry. [Interruption.] I tried to intervene previously in the debate to ask questions, but was not allowed to.
I wanted to intervene, for example, on the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal to ask him which chair in Cabinet he occupied when the previous Government


abolished the Greater London council. Where was he then? Was he arguing for plurality in th debate, which he says is so healthy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wide of the group of amendments that we are considering, and many of his arguments would have been better suited to Second Reading. He is not the only hon. Member who is guilty of going wide of the amendments.

Mr. Bradley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke in the Second Reading debate, and these are just the bits that I could not get in—

Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend used all the jokes in that speech.

Mr. Bradley: Yes; I remember the joke about "The Scarlet Pimpernel". [HON. MEMBERS: "We seek him here."] Yes, but that Pimpernel has now shuffled off to health and I hope that he is faring better there.
I would have preferred a clean break. I would have preferred us to move straight from the present House of Lords to a comprehensively reformed upper Chamber, but matters of constitutional reform are extremely sensitive. They demand deliberation, consideration and, indeed, compromise. Even when a Government enjoy a majority of the size that we enjoy, there has to be room for compromise; but I would rather we have this change than none at all. For that reason, and despite its flaws, I shall support the Weatherill amendment.

Mr. John MacGregor: I will be brief, as I spoke when the amendment was last before the House. Then, it was ably proposed for the Conservatives by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)
I partly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—but I strongly agree with him on two points. The first is in the tribute he paid to the work, dedication and contribution to our public life that the hereditary peers have made for many years. I pay a personal tribute as I was delighted that my non-voting constituent, Earl Ferrers, came top of the poll among the elected Members. That really is a tribute to his service on both the Back and Front Benches, but mainly on the Front Bench, for many years.
Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the biggest charge against the Bill is that we are to get phase 1 without phase 2, which is fundamental to the amendment. That argument was ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). It has been made time and again throughout our debates on the Bill; it is supported by many commentators outside the House; and many people across the country have latched on to the argument.
The Leader of the House attempted to justify the situation in her opening remarks by saying that she very much hoped that there would be agreement on how to proceed to stage 2, so it was most unlikely that the mechanism of by-elections would ever need to be used. That mechanism is the point of amendment (c), tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
However, the right hon. Lady later introduced a note of caution, giving herself a considerable let-out when she admitted that there might never be agreement on how to proceed. That is terribly important. She attempted to justify phase 1 without phase 2 on the ground that the Government had to break the log-jam of delay in reform of the past 89 years. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made the same point and suggested that Conservative Governments had delayed reform. In the 15 years since 1945 that previous Labour Governments were in power, they did not make any moves either. They attempted to do so on one occasion, but failed totally.
The biggest problem, and the cause of what the right hon. Lady described as the log-jam, has always been phase 2. That is why there has been no agreement on how to reform the House of Lords since the Parliament Act 1911. The argument about what should replace what we are putting in place through the Bill remains most germane. We are going towards the end of a plank with no idea of what is at the end of it and may well stay on the end for a very long time.
I suspect that there will be no phase 2 for a long time. As for the amendment, we must proceed on the basis that there is a considerable probability that there will be no phase 2, or at least not in the lifetime of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as he put it, although I, too, hope that that will be a long time. We have heard some indication of that from those on the Labour Back Benches. That fact is very much in everyone's minds as we consider what we are putting in place.
If that is, indeed, the case, as I believe it will be, the biggest threat that we face is an increasingly appointed second Chamber. Reference has been made to the fact that 171 life peers have been appointed by the present Prime Minister—a high proportion in only two and a half years. I have heard rumours from more than one quarter recently—I have no idea whether there is any truth in them—that the Prime Minister is minded to appoint 200 life peers as part of the millennium celebrations. That may or may not be true-it has a certain resonance—but, even if it is not true for that occasion, one can well imagine that that is precisely the sort of thing that the Prime Minister would be tempted to do on another occasion, not least if the country had the misfortune to find him Prime Minister after the next election. It is the sort of step that he might well take, if he had a second victory, shortly after the election when it could be done swiftly without being a feature of the election campaign after that. That is a particular threat because the Government are yet again refusing to allow a statutory appointments commission to be included in the Bill. One must ask why. Naturally, one suspects that they do not want such a commission because the Prime Minister's pledge not to have patronage of his own could easily be broken and he might not necessarily follow it through later. We only have his word for it.
Therefore, the threat of an increasingly appointed second Chamber remains strong. That is why I support the Lords amendment. At least it preserves the element of independence and experience until we get to phase 2. It is that independence which is so important. As long as there is a risk of an increasingly fixed Chamber, the 92 hereditary elements are vital. As we may well have phase 1 for so long, I totally reject the amendment tabled


by the hon. Member for Thurrock, which could mean an increasingly small number of hereditary peers in the Chamber.
As for the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, I do not believe that because the hereditary peers who have been elected by their peers have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads—ultimately, the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords—they will be as unwilling to be independent as he suggests. I think that those peers who are allowed to stay under the amendment will be independent. My hon. Friend argued that they would not be able to exercise real power because of the sword of Damocles.
This is an argument not about composition but about the powers of the House of Lords. The House of Lords would not be able to use any more powers than they have at present.

Mr. Tyrie: It is not a question of power—the Lords already have adequate powers. It is a question of whether they have the moral authority to exercise them. The present House does not have the moral authority and nor will the interim House have it; that is why I favour democracy.

Mr. MacGregor: That is looking to the long term. I am talking about the situation in the interim—it could be a very long interim—until we get phase 2. The powers are not changed. The House of Lords has been willing to exercise the limited powers that it has, and I do not envisage that the hereditary peers will be any less willing to exercise them during the next interim phase. It is much more important for them to be there to exercise the powers that they have than to have a Chamber that is appointed increasingly by the Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend knows, I think that one crucial element of the reform of the House of Lords is to increase its powers. That is at least as important as its composition, but that is not an argument for today.
I agree with some of my hon. Friend's criticisms of some elements of the election of hereditary peers under the Bill. Of course, it is not an ideal solution. The Bill is far from an ideal solution itself, but, because the Lords amendment would improve it to a certain extent, I support it.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I rise to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and to speak against the Lords amendment. I did not like it when we debated it earlier this year and I do not like it any more now. It is unappealing to be asked to support it, because it would establish a non-democratic second Chamber with the power to renew itself. No timetable is offered for the existence of the new, non-democratic second Chamber.
Although I am grateful for the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we will proceed to a second stage, there is no indication of what that second stage will be. If the Government intend to proceed to a second stage, I do not understand why the Bill does not say so. That would give us an assurance that the situation is an interim measure. It may be the

Government's intention—I hope that it is realised—to proceed to a second stage, but, without such an assurance, we shall be passing legislation that will create a new second Chamber that lasts until it is repealed. That makes the amendment one of enormous consequence. It would change our constitution permanently, because it does not say that it is a temporary measure.
I am also confused by the reference in the amendment to the method of election, because that election took place last week. Perhaps I am being dim, but I am not sure under what powers that election took place. Was it a legitimate election? Where was the debate in this House that decided the basis on which those peers should be elected? I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if she wishes to intervene and explain under what power the Lords went through that election last week. It seemed to me to be an illegitimate election. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office winds up, he will explain whether the election last week was legitimate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is clear that if the House should reject the amendment, that election will be null and void. In that sense, it was a provisional election. If the House upholds the amendment, the election will be upheld.

Mr. Fisher: The concept of provisional action by this Chamber or the other Chamber is new and interesting. Those actions have not been determined by Act of Parliament. I am not aware of this provisional procedure.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Much of our European legislation is drawn up in that way. Ministers decide on the continent through the royal prerogative and we have to rubber-stamp their decisions back here.

Mr. Fisher: I am not sure that the election last week was decided under royal prerogative. It seemed to be an invention dreamed up by the Lords, perhaps in anticipation of the passing of the Bill. My understanding is that we have to pass legislation before we can act on it. That does not seem to have happened in this case.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Nobody has acted on the legislation. The Lords have made a provisional decision, acting according to their Standing Orders. Unless and until the Bill receives Royal Assent, the results of those elections will not take effect.

Mr. Fisher: I do not know which of their Standing Orders give the Lords the power to structure such an election. They seem to have acted ultra vires. To say that the election is provisional and that we may give it retrospective legitimacy by passing the amendment seems an extremely unsatisfactory way of conducting parliamentary business. I suspect that it is also illegal. I can see no legal basis for the election that happened in the other Chamber last week.
I should like to return to the reasons why the amendment makes me apprehensive. My right hon. Friend was honest and straightforward with the House in her opening remarks. When explaining the background, she conceded that it may be difficult to find a basis of agreement for the second stage. Having heard the many debates in this Chamber earlier in the year, that seems to


me to be the understatement of the year. There are almost as many views on the best form of a second Chamber as there are Members. I tried to canvass cross-party support earlier in the year for an early-day motion calling for a directly elected second Chamber. Many of those who put their names to the motion did so for a variety of motives, because there are so many views.
The fact that there may not be agreement, however, makes it all the more important that the Government should provide leadership and not wait to be told by Lord Wakeham or anybody else. They should give a clear lead and say how our democracy ought to proceed. The Government have an electoral mandate and one of the largest majorities in living memory. They should set out the principles on which they believe the second Chamber should be based and put them before both Chambers.

Mr. Leigh: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should let off the handbrake of electoral reform with no idea of where we are going to drive to?

Mr. Fisher: On the contrary, I am making a plea for leadership from the Government about where we should be going and for that view to be debated by Parliament. That is how we should proceed. If we wait until we have the consensus that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House understandably seeks, we shall never reach agreement. That leads me to be even more apprehensive about the permanence of this very unsatisfactory amendment.
Subsection (4) refers to what happens in the event of death. Those of us who have looked at our noble colleagues in the other Chamber know that they seem to be a fairly healthy lot. I hope that none of them is going to die in the near future, but we are being asked to pass legislation that anticipates how we shall replace those hale and hearty people in the event that they die. That also smells to me of worrying permanence.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is being fair. However, I should point out that it was anxieties in the House of Lords among those who, for some inexplicable reason, mistrust the Government's motives that led to the provision being put in. The Government did not think the provision necessary.

Mr. Fisher: I am delighted to hear that. However, we are being invited to vote for that view of the House of Lords, which I do not find appealing. I also suspect that the new members of the second Chamber, who will be sincere men and women trying to do a good public job, will not be terribly anxious to have an early second stage, which would remove them just as they were getting used to their powers and getting good at exercising them.
The amendment is dangerously permanent and we have to assume that it will be with us for a considerable time. Our democracy has always been incomplete, and the amendment does not complete it as it should; it simply delays that completion. It reforms the second Chamber, but only by replacing a less than legitimate system with another, equally illegitimate system. In a democracy, the only legitimate basis for a house of representatives is the ballot box, which represents the view of the public. We are here because of the views of our electorate and so should Members of any other Chamber be. I am baffled that right hon. and hon. Members who owe their position

and their right to speak here to the fact that they have been sent here by the electorate can argue against the democratic principle.
There can be only one form of legitimacy for the other Chamber, and that is direct democratic elections. At stage 2, we can debate the form of such elections, the nature of the constituency and the powers of the other Chamber. They should be powers of scrutiny and restraint on the Executive, not challenging the House but complementing and strengthening it. But that is a debate for another day. However, the amendment puts in place a non-democratic Chamber, and that is upsetting.
In this debate, we have not heard about the rights of the electorate. In determining here the form of the second Chamber, there is no mention of the electorate. The only people who have been voted for in the second Chamber are 90 men and women who happen to be hereditary peers. The public who sent us here have no rights at all; they continue to be excluded. They have no voice in half our democracy, and that is entirely unsatisfactory.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in her peroration said that this was a great reform. It should be an historic moment at long last to complete the loop of our democracy and ensure that whoever passes the laws of this country is sent to these Chambers by members of the public at their behest and can be removed by them; but the amendment does not do that, and it cannot have my support.

Sir Norman Fowler: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his speech setting out the case for an elected second Chamber, and I agree with him. I also very much enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). He made an excellent case for voting against the measure, but I gather that that is not the instruction. Never has there been a measure for which so many will vote with as many reservations as have been expressed this evening.
Nothing that I say is intended to be in any way derogatory of the peers who have already been elected under the system in the measure. I was delighted that peers such as Earl Ferrers and the Lords Strathclyde, Trefgarne and Denham have been elected. They are great servants.
I was equally delighted by another development. A year ago, for some reason, the Home Secretary attacked Lord Ampthill by name. He said:
we witnessed the risible spectacle of the fourth Baron Ampthill…claiming to speak for the British people…what right has Lord Ampthill or any other hereditary peer to sabotage the decisions of this elected House?"—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 959.]
I am glad to say that under the system that the Home Secretary has supported and introduced, Lord Ampthill has been elected as a permanent hereditary peer in the other place. But that is probably the best that I can say about the measure.
6.45 pm
To make the obvious point, which should not be ignored, we are debating the principle of the change, not what is best for existing members of the House of Lords.


We are debating the make-up of the kind of second Chamber that we want. Against that criterion, the proposition in the amendment is complete rubbish.
I well understand that Labour Members claim a mandate for the abolition of hereditary peers. I have fought every election since 1970 and I cannot remember the issue having come up once in any public meeting that I have conducted. Nevertheless, they claim a mandate for it. But few Labour Members can claim a mandate for the kind of proposition in the new clause, which states:
At any one time 90 people shall be excepted from section 1"—
that is abolition—
but anyone excepted as holder of the office of Earl Marshal, or as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain, shall not count towards that limit.
I am sure that that was explained carefully in Liverpool and Lambeth during the election.
Few Labour Members would have set out the extraordinary idea that hereditary peers would have to circulate election addresses among their colleagues. One wonders whether at some stage the same will be necessary for life peers. If it is, the mind begins to boggle at the possibilities. I can see messages coming forward such as, "I was Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 and nothing much good has happened since", and other election addresses of that kind.
Even Labour Members would not have come up with the by-election system for replacement of those who were elected but have prematurely kicked the bucket. As I understand the system, if one of the two elected Labour hereditary peers dies, the one surviving member selects his successor. That must be the minutest and most select electorate that we have ever put in place.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not for a moment. With the greatest respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend has been here for long.

Mr. Viggers: Yes, I have.

Sir Norman Fowler: All the same, I shall not give way.
In my national service days—I can speak to my hon. Friend in that way because we were at college together—there was a saying, "A joke's a joke, but I'm against a pantomime", although it was put rather more directly than that. We must understand how we have ended up with the new clause. At this point, there is a wise nodding of heads—a pragmatic compromise, I think one hon. Member called it. More unkindly, it could be described as a fix by political fixers. That is what has taken place, and I use the term with no admiration whatever. The Government wanted to get their legislation through without trouble. They were prepared to throw a bone to the Lords, but the bone was on a piece of string and would

be hauled back if the Lords overdid their opposition to measures such as the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
The issue then became, as so often these days it regrettably does, an issue of spinning. Would it be the Government who got the blame for giving in on the principle of total abolition, or would it be the Opposition parties for going quietly and giving up on the fight?
I say this in parenthesis—it has been touched on and I may be in a better position than most to know some of the things that took place—but one of the worst features of the affair has been the way in which the issue has been decided behind closed doors before the debate could be properly joined, or before people and hon. Members had the opportunity to come to a position—a point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
I have in mind particularly the part played by Lord Cranborne. When Lord Cranborne agreed to the deal he did so without the authority of the leader of the Conservative party, without the authority of the special committee that had been set up inside the shadow Cabinet to deal with the issue, without the authority of the shadow Cabinet and without the authority of the parliamentary party. For those reasons, he was rightly sacked from the shadow Cabinet. As a member of the committee in question, I would take some persuading to vote for what, in effect, as has already been said, is the Cranborne deal.
But I have even less intention of voting for the amendment on the basis of the choice that we have today. From now on, one of two courses will be followed. The Government may keep their word and reform will take place, in which case the system being proposed today will almost certainly fall to the ground and become a deal not worth the making.
One of the biggest fears in the debate has been that the alternative system will continue because the Government will find the reform too difficult to carry out. We will then be stuck with the worst of every conceivable world—a predominantly appointed House of Lords. That is the position we have been left with—90 or so hereditary peers, dwarfed by the appointed Members.
Some will say that there is nothing wrong with that. We know from the diaries of Lady Richards—which we have all enjoyed—that the Home Secretary believes in an appointed House. He showed that by appointing his own special adviser to it. It is no longer an accident of birth. The argument is that these are men of undoubted distinction and they are being appointed entirely on their merits.
I have been around the table when some of these decisions have been taken, and I must say that it is possible to be too distinguished. If a Cabinet Minister, a European Commissioner or a member of the successful 1966 English football team is mentioned, the Leader of the Lords will say that that person will never have time to come to the House of Lords—"He is too distinguished". He then puts forward the name of Smith, a junior Whip with the best possible division record as a 
Back Bencher. He voted for Government policies when they were put forward and, with an equally clear conscience, voted when they were abandoned later.

Mr. Keith Simpson: A sound man.

Sir Norman Fowler: Indeed. In case anyone thinks that this is confined to one party, we know that Labour has asked new life peers to sign a declaration that they will turn up to vote. They have had to go to that extreme.

Mr. Fraser: I would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the top Labour fundraiser, Lord Levy, has missed 105 of the 160 Divisions in the Lords. Lord Bragg—who came into the House, according to the Government, to help to change it radically—has missed half of the votes that he could have attended. The Prime Minister's great ally, Lord Simpson, has voted six times out of 157. The billionaire Lord Sainsbury, now a Minister, has managed 38 out of 161 division, and the billionaire Lord Haskins, another Labour donor, has yet to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have an endless list.

Sir Norman Fowler: I would like to assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that although my hon. Friend makes my case much more eloquently than I could, there has been no collusion between us. It has to be said that, on our side of the Lords, there are also doubtless those who do not turn up.

Mr. Fisher: Surely not!

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman may disagree. However, the Government are making more permanent that sort of system—the system for which Labour Members will be voting.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that the debate on this new clause could have been avoided had the Government set out what their alternative second Chamber was. Throughout the debate, we have been in a fog as regards where the Government want to go. The trouble is that the Government themselves do not know—they have no idea. Again, the diaries of Lady Richards tell us that some are for an elected assembly, but the Prime Minister and others are not.
It is the job of the royal commission to make sense of this, and I hope that it will come forward with a clear report and proposals, not some compromise which manages to achieve an uneasy agreement among the members of the commission.
I oppose the new clause for these reasons. The Government can claim a mandate for change in the second Chamber, but they have no mandate for this dog's breakfast of a new clause. As a temporary measure, it borders on the ridiculous. All its defects have been set out by Members on both sides of the House. As a more permanent measure, it is utterly indefensible.
If we are to have elections—which I support—the electorate cannot conceivably be the closed electorate envisaged in the new clause. If we are to have elections for the second House, the public should decide. An

elected House means a House elected by the nation. Having started on this course, that is the goal at which we should be aiming.

Dr. Ladyman: This has been a strange debate. I do not think that I have ever heard the official Opposition take up so many positions in such a short time, and I am still not entirely sure what their position is. Some Opposition Members seem to support the amendment, while others do not. There is no harm in that—it is reasonable. Labour Members are equally divided.
However, even Conservative Members who support the amendment have not described it as good or pragmatic. At least we recognise it for what it is—a pragmatic amendment, intended to achieve a specific purpose. Whether we like it or not, we see the benefits of that pragmatism.
We have heard much about the independence of the hereditary peers, and much about place men and cronies. Is it not extraordinary that everybody in the other place who represents the Labour party is a place man or a crony, while all those in the Lords who support the Conservatives—and there are a lot more of them than there are Labour Members—are free-thinking individuals? Were they free-thinking individuals when they were bussed in to support the poll tax? Were they free-thinking individuals when they were bussed in a few months later to vote it out again?
Were Tory peers free-thinking individuals when they came in to the Chamber to support the Maastricht treaty? I suspect that they would pay their own bus fare if they had the chance to vote it out again now. The comments of Conservative Members about the need to preserve hereditary peers because of their free thinking and independence are hot air. They have no substance or credibility.
Opposition Members have said that the reforms should not go forward, as there would not be attempts in the Lords to block Government legislation if the amendment were not included. They seem to have airbrushed from history the fact that Lord Cranborne was fired for not being willing to oppose the policy outright. They seem to have erased from their memories all the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench about their determination to oppose these reforms. They seem to have forgotten many of the statements made on Second Reading and earlier, when many Opposition Members were clearly arguing for the retention of the hereditary peerage.
We have heard today that we needed both stages of reform at once. Does anyone seriously believe that if we had proposed a complete reform of the House of Lords in one stage, the Conservatives would not be opposing it today, hook, line and sinker, and that they would not have fought it every step of the way through the House of Lords?
Stage 2 reform will happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I hope before the general election—although that is extremely unlikely. However, we have said that we are committed to putting stage 2 reform in our next manifesto, as have the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives have now said that they are committed to putting it in theirs. Unless Lord Burford forms a political party and wins the next general election, the second stage of reform will happen. I think that it will happen within a few years,


so we should base our policies on that. We should start the debate now. One of the advantages of having the debate as part of the next general election is that we will be able to get some of the views of our electorate on what shape the new House of Lords should take.
7 pm
The amendment is pure pragmatism. I want to make some comments to my hon. Friends who have spoken against it. I do not believe that the Bill has been improved by the amendment, but I believe that we will get our Bill because of it. By being prepared to compromise and accept it, we have got several of our other Bills through the House of Lords. The Leader of the House mentioned the Food Standards Bill and the Railways Bill. They were the tip of the iceberg because there are also other Bills that we would have lost if we had had to fight this all the way through the House of Lords. It is pure pragmatism.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. I reminded him on Second Reading of the years when he used to tour the country telling Labour party members how it would be necessary to create 1,000 life peers to vote the House of Lords out of existence. He used to tell us that that was the only way we could do it. Today, he tells us that neither hereditary nor life peers have any legitimacy and so we must get rid of them all as quickly as possible. Why was it better to create 1,000 life peers without legitimacy than to allow 92 hereditaries to stay for another a year or so to get our Bill? We have achieved something that the party of which I am proud to be a member has been trying to achieve since the day it was set up. We are within hours of that historic achievement, purely as a result of a piece of pragmatism.
I do not believe that this pragmatism has improved the Bill, but it has made it possible for us to get our Bill. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) described the amendment as a dog's breakfast. If one wants to feed a dog, a dog's breakfast is sometimes the best thing to have. We have never denied that the amendment is anything other than pure pragmatism. It makes the reformed Chamber less legitimate than I would like, but a lot better than it would be without it. I shall support the amendment, as I shall support the Government as we bring through stage 2 reform and finally achieve the goal of a reformed Chamber and the end of all the hereditary peers.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am disappointed this afternoon. I had hoped that, even at this 11th hour, the Government would think again, do what most people thought that they would do and abolish the House of Lords once and for all. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) pointed out that the only legitimate second Chamber is a directly elected one. I can find no excuse to vote for the amendment tonight. I certainly shall not abstain. I shall vote against, because I do not believe that anything else makes sense.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) suggested that the amendment was a temporary measure. He is not here, but I asked him in the Corridor what he meant by temporary. He said "Anything but permanent."

It could have been a decade or 50 years, but he did not want anything that suggested permanence. The problem for most of us is that there is a sense of permanency about the amendment. There is an element of doubt even in the minds of the most ardent supporters of a compromise. They must have serious reservations about the amendment's implications.
Other hon. Members have paid tribute to the other House and the hereditary peers. I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving with many of them on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The likes of Lord Ponsonby, Lord Newall, the Earl of Dundee, Lord Grenfell and many others have put in distinguished service in the House of Lords and outside it on behalf of all parties in Parliament. They will be sorely missed, but if we had gone for a democratically elected second Chamber, they would have had the opportunity to seek election to it and continue their work. The suggestion that there is some benefit in allowing 92 hereditaries to remain is nonsense. It is a stitch-up—tokenism. We are trying to avoid dealing with the issue.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) talked about how many electors had told her that they wanted the matter at the top of the Government's agenda. My mind goes back to the days when I used to listen to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) speaking to Labour party meetings, when I was a member of that party. I well remember his speech in which he said that we needed to create 1,000 life peers to abolish the House of Lords. He used to go on to say that we would then establish a democratically elected second Chamber. He wanted the 1,000 peers to be created only for that moment to get rid of the second Chamber altogether. How right he was. It was right then, and the overwhelming majority of people recognise that. People did not queue at my advice centre, or on the campaign trail in 1997, 1992, 1987 or 1984 to say that they wanted the matter high on the agenda. Most thinking people, the overwhelming majority of people, expected the Labour party to abolish the House of Lords and create in its place a democratically elected second Chamber. That is the failure.
The Leader of the House and others have said that the reason that they did not pursue that endeavour was because they would have been held to ransom. She said that they would have lost precious legislation. She was probably right. There would have been some delay. I do not think legislation would have been lost because I do not think that the House of Lords and its Members would have wanted a confrontation with the nation. Does she seriously maintain that the hereditary peers, the House of Lords and the Leader of the Opposition would have advocated to the nation that there was a legitimate role for them to frustrate a Government with a 170-seat majority simply to keep unelected people in office? I do not believe it.
There is a second and more compelling reason. Some people were nervous about what would happen with a democratically elected second Chamber. They thought that the ballot box would not deliver what they wanted and looked for excuses for not going down that line. That will be the stumbling-block over the next few years, as they try to create a second Chamber that will deliver what whichever Government are in power want. The ballot box is not prone to doing that. Many of us who have been in the House and out again have suffered from that. Governments would suffer, as they do in the United States


and many other places with democratically elected second chambers. The people have the habit of going against the Government of the day in second chamber elections. The distinct possibility of that happening is what made the Prime Minister and others nervous and take the cautious line that I think will turn temporary into semi-permanent. We will end up with a stitch-up. We will not have improved Government or scrutiny. We will not get better Government by flooding the place at the millennium with another 200 life peers, as someone speculated that the Prime Minister intends. That will not make anything better. What I suspect that the House will vote for tonight will diminish not only the second Chamber, but this Chamber. This country will get worse, not better, government. That is a denial of what most of the nation's electorate expected the Labour Government to deliver.
We are to have a second-rate solution to first-class problem, but what we in this country need is the support and the conviction to ensure that, sooner rather than later, we get a democratically elected second Chamber. I am sure that there will be endless debates in the royal commission now sitting—and the next, as I am sure that the first will not come up with a solution that satisfies everyone.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested that people had envisaged at least 659 varieties of future second Chamber and he pleaded for the Government to give a lead. The Government cannot start from a better position than the premise that they want the new second Chamber to be established soon, to be democratically elected and to be doing a job that the people of this country believe is worthy of it. Instead, if we support the Government motion tonight, we shall downgrade the second Chamber and, in so doing, diminish this House and the democratic processes of this country.

Mr. Forth: Every now and then in a debate such as this comes a moment of truth or revelation that sets the subject in context. That moment came, somewhat surprisingly, in the speech of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who revealed what we all knew but no one had dared to say out loud: that the amendment is the result of a rather sordid and dirty deal done—mainly by the Government, but with the connivance of others—to get the fag end of the Government's ill-managed legislative programme through. To achieve that, we are being asked tonight to alter our constitution and our legislature irrevocably.
That strikes me as one of the most disgraceful suggestions that I have heard in my time as a Member of Parliament. It certainly contrasts with the high words used by the Leader of the House, who spoke of solutions for the millennium and claimed that, for centuries to come, people would praise us for what we are about to do. It is as well that she did not have to listen to her hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet before making that opening speech, because, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, we now know the real truth. We are being asked to alter the upper Chamber—the second part of our legislature—to fulfil a grubby deal done partly to save some skins, but mainly to enable the completion of an ill-managed legislative programme. That is what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe him.

Mr. Nicholls: I accept the accuracy of my right hon. Friend's account of the motivation of Labour Members,

but does he agree that the motivation of those hereditary peers who are to remain might be entirely different? Might they not be telling themselves that they could not have prevented the Government from getting their legislation through because the Parliament Act would ultimately have ensured its passage? Will my right hon. Friend at least entertain the possibility that some of the 92 are, out of a sense of duty, trying to make a thoroughly bad system work slightly better than it would otherwise have done?

Mr. Forth: Of course I accept that and, like my hon. Friend, I impute to the hereditary peers only the highest motives. However, I dispute whether what has been done is a proper solution for our legislative process, for our constitutional arrangements and for the long-term benefit of the country. Those are the things that matter, not pleasing a few people or accepting that their motivation is honourable, for such things are merely temporary.
I should have thought that we should be discussing a long-term proper dispensation for the governance of the country. Regrettably, the debate has been reduced to far less than that. We have ended up being asked to accept a peculiar arrangement whereby hereditary peers are elected—not properly elected, but elected by each other—and so are allowed to continue to be part of the legislative process. That strikes me as containing a greater number of contradictions than I would ever have thought possible, but it is all that is on offer tonight.
7.15 pm
It pains me to say it, but I accept the thrust of the argument advanced by the Labour party ever since the changes that we are now making were proposed. Labour started from the proposition that the upper House as it has hitherto been constituted is an affront to democracy. I accept that, even though I have always been prepared to defend the hereditary arrangement in the form that it has taken until now. I have no problem defending the long-standing hereditary element of the House of Lords; but, that having been swept away, I move to asking what the alternative is. The odd thing is that, if I accept Labour's original proposition, I have to adopt Labour's analysis and say that an upper House composed of appointees is also an affront to democracy.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman clarified his position. In an intervention earlier in the debate, he said that patronage corrupts both the granter of the patronage and the recipient. If the argument that patronage corrupts can be used against life peers, it can be used also against hereditary peers. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on the hereditary principle in the current constitution of the House of Lords?

Mr. Forth: Unusually for me, I have not intervened in the debate, but sat patiently and listened carefully, so I did not say what the hon. Gentleman says I said—I may well agree with it, but I did not say it. In any case, my point is far more fundamental: if we are to rest the argument on what is or is not democratic, we cannot accept the continuation of an appointed element in a part of our legislature; nor can we accept the continuation of a rump of hereditaries who must, by definition, be an


affront to democracy, as the Government told us from the start. Having those hereditary peers electing one another in some peculiar way makes their presence no less of an affront unless we redefine democracy and say that the electorate is not the people at large, as we all thought that it was, but can comprise the hereditaries themselves. That cannot be right, yet that is what we are being asked to accept in the amendment.
I cannot accept the amendment, or any part of it. I cannot accept the continuation of life peers in the upper House, although I realise that that is not the subject of our debate. It strikes me as bizarre that people who give large donations to a political party can, as a result, end up as part of the legislature; that is neither acceptable nor democratic. Neither do I accept the continuation of an hereditary element.

Mr. Martin Linton: Does the right hon. Member accept that many hereditary peers are Members of the House of Lords precisely because their ancestors gave money to the Conservative party? Indeed, that category includes many of those who were elected by their fellow peers to continue to sit in the Lords. For example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on the hereditary principle. We are debating the amendment.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Simply because something happened in the past does not legitimise it now. Is the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggesting that it does? If so, and he believes that past events legitimise the giving of peerages to those who have made donations, that is a development that we do not want to pursue, do we, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
The other arguments expressed in the group of amendments are even more bizarre. One appears to be that the peculiar European principle of the list should now be imported into the composition of our Upper House. It is suggested that if, alas, one of the elected hereditaries passes on, the next one on a list should automatically fill the position. I do not find that an acceptable principle—even though, much to my regret, it has already crept into our politics—and I do not see why we should legitimise it or revalidate it tonight.
Even more peculiar is the concept of a by-election. The process is not defined anywhere in the amendments, apart from a single reference to a by-election; nor is there any description of how it might work. It has been suggested that such matters would be adequately covered by Standing Orders in another place. I am not sure that I accept that as a satisfactory principle for appointing members of a legislature. We do not know who would conduct the by-election and on what basis. We know only that the provision is in Standing Orders—which, presumably, are subject to alteration at the whim of the House. A series of propositions would deliver a fully functioning, law-making body within our constitution comprising either appointees or hereditaries—a rump of people chosen from a list or via an unspecified by-election; we know not what in any detail.
None of those propositions is acceptable. I believe that, once we have swept away the hereditary principle, we should go straight to a proper directly elected upper House. I will not dwell on that point, because this is not the time or the place to do so. However, that is my response to questions that were posed legitimately during the debate. I would have defended the hereditary principle; my party and I did not suggest that it should be changed. However, now that it is to happen, we must respond. My response is that the present arrangement is totally unacceptable. Until someone suggests a proper, legitimate, accountable, directly elected upper House, I will be unable to accept any alternative.

Mr. Nicholls: I always enjoy following my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in debates as I can usually declare that I agree with everything he said. I cannot go that far tonight—although we start from the same position.
There is an assumption running throughout the debate and underlying this amendment that the hereditary principle cannot be justified in any circumstances. The assumption, to a greater or lesser extent, is that the case has never been made for the hereditary principle. However, I can explain—I can do so in a few words because it underlines my position on the amendment—why the case for the hereditary principle can be, and should have been, made.
We are always told that the hereditary principle cannot be justified because it is not democratic—as though one can examine every ingredient of Parliament and say that each must be democratic before the whole can be. Some people think that sovereignty lies with the House of Commons. The Prime Minister believes that it lies with him. In fact, sovereignty lies with the Queen in Parliament. The monarch is not democratic, and nor is the House of Lords. However, the Queen in Parliament is an institution which works democratically because it makes sure that the people can elect and depose their representatives.
Is the Parliament responsive and democratic? That is the beginning, middle and end of the democratic process. We could have a long debate on another occasion about how we got here, but it is no argument to say that the House of Lords is not democratic and thus should be abolished. However, I accept that we are beyond that point now.
What should we discuss when considering the House of Lords? We should talk about how it functions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks strictly to the amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will define what I think the Weatherill amendment will achieve. We must ask what the reformed House will do after Weatherill. There is no point claiming that Weatherill will enable the reformed Chamber to stand against the House of Commons. It is pointless electing another Chamber simply to oppose the House. I do not want another House to be elected and given democratic legitimacy simply so that it can hold the Prime Minister to account. The correct time to do that is at the next general election, when Conservative Members will go out and


make our case—and many believe that we can defeat him in open country. That is our purpose. Creating an upper House simply to start a constitutional fight with another place is not an attractive prospect.
I like to think that, after Weatherill, the upper House will continue to carry out its current functions. Many in the other place say that the scrutiny role appeals to them, and I am sure that many noble Lords perform that role very carefully. After Weatherill, the second Chamber should not hold up the House of Commons but ensure that the Government of the day—be it Labour or Conservative—act in the full light of day. Although one might not have designed it that way if one had had a blank sheet of paper, the marvellous thing about the House of Lords was that it performed that task. The House of Lords ensured that the electorate could have a second look without holding up the House of Commons. It ensured that the public knew what was afoot so that they could use that information at the next election.
Several hon. Members have asked, in the context of the Weatherill amendment, whether the new reformed House will work. The short answer is: I do not know, but we will find out because it will clearly be some time before the new reformed House is changed. I suppose that views on the matter will differ. A close friend in the upper House believes that, given what has happened to it since 1997, the House of Lords is an institution that can no longer perform the sort of scrutiny role to which I refer. After many years of public service, he decided not to stand for re-election. He will say, "That was a job well done for 600 years" and leave. I understand his view. He is probably wrong, but only time will tell.
If the new House comprises only Members appointed by Prime Ministers—let us face it, the Leader of the House of Lords is there only because she is the daughter of a Prime Minister—how can we be confident that it will perform the tasks that I have set out? Weatherill will achieve that objective. It will keep within the system a body of people who have—I say this without a hint of humour or irony—been judged by their peers; they are there because those with whom they have worked know that they can do the job. They are unwhippable and unbiddable and can provide a degree of independence. That objective must be desirable on pragmatic grounds alone.

Mr. Swayne: Is not the fact that the noble Lords opted for this sordid compromise and failed in the total warfare that we expected from them—which would have cost the Government much of their legislation—proof that they were biddable?

Mr. Nicholls: That is a good point, but it is entirely wrong. It is not based on fact. My hon. Friend and I are Members of Parliament. I am sure that all hon. Members think about the next election. All hon. Members know that the key issue facing the country at the next election is their return to the House, even if no one else makes it. Members of Parliament think in terms of those time scales.
However, the time scale in the upper House is much longer. It is ridiculous to think that the noble Lord Cranborne could be biddable: give him a life peerage and he will hang around for two years in a partially reformed House. I do not know Lord Cranborne; I met him a few times when I served with him in this place and I have

talked to him in the Corridor. He does not think in terms of the next election: historically, his family thinks in terms of half a millennium. It is nonsense to think that he could be bought off with a life peerage. I know many hon. Members who could not be bought off with a life peerage—except, of course, my hon. Friend and me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] That comment must go on the record.
The idea that Lord Cranborne, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Ferrers and others of that calibre want to stay on in the other place—which many regard as a house of cronies—for the money and the social prestige is completely risible. What is the real motivation for this change, which the Weatherill amendment will improve slightly? It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the Prime Minister. He had a problem. He intended to gain government, abandon his principles and run a right-of-centre fiscal policy. He thought, "How can I keep my Back Benchers happy when, for the most part, they have not secretly abandoned their principles? I'll fling them the hereditary peerage because that does not matter, and I'll give them fox hunting as well."
7.30 pm
If anybody has any doubt that that is the motivation for the reform, they should consider the exchange that took place in Prime Minister's Question Time on 27 October between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), to whom I have written to say that I intended to mention the exchange. When she asked the usual fawning question of the Prime Minister about whether he agreed that he was a marvellous chap because he wanted to do in the hereditary peerage, she lingered over the names of the Earl of Burford. She called him Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk, and the way in which she pronounced those names absolutely reeked of the class hatred that underlies the Labour party.
If I had used the name of the hon. Lady and had milked it for its ordinary origins, I would have behaved in a disgraceful and ungentlemanly way, but Conservative Members believe that the fact that Labour Members think that it is a legitimate tactic of public debate to mock and sneer at somebody because they hold a name of great nobility says a great deal about them.
The Weatherill amendment is not the most brilliant amendment in the world. It will not achieve a reformed House that is the best that can be devised. It will not enable people to have the social cachet that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) thinks will be achieved by being a Member of the reformed House, but, for the time being, it will enable peers to continue to do the job that they have done for the past 600 years, which is to make sure that there is a degree of independent scrutiny. Anybody who thinks that, under this Prime Minister, anything better could be achieved is, frankly, not living in the real world.

Mr. Fallon: After having listened to this debate for four hours, I think that its most singular characteristic so far has been the dawning realisation of Labour Members that stage 2 simply will not happen. There has, of course, been one exception—the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has blind faith that, somehow, he will be re-elected and the first Bill that he will support will be a stage 2 Bill.
What Conservative Members have been pointing out ever since we began proceedings on the Bill much earlier this year, and what Labour Members have now begun to realise, is that we shall be stuck with the Bill for perhaps 40, 50 or 60 years. If that were not the case, the Government would have accepted the range of amendments that we offered them in Committee specifically to link the Bill to stage 2. I moved some of those amendments, which offered a range of ways of binding the Government to stage 2. We shall be stuck with this Bill, and we shall be stuck with the Weatherill amendment.
Another characteristic of the debate has been the singular lack of enthusiasm for the Weatherill amendment. I certainly share the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the amendment. It will create something of a hostage House. Those surviving hereditaries, knowing that stage 2 can be produced at any time, will be on their best behaviour. Who knows? They may want to be part of stage 2.
I can well envisage the leader of the Labour hereditary peers trotting round to No. 10 to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to conclude his own variation on the so-called Cranborne deal. Labour peers will also want to stay on, and the best proof of that lies in the wording of the Weatherill amendment. It contains the arrangements for perpetuation. The 90 will continue.
Other hon. Members have drawn attention to some of the more farcical aspects of that perpetuation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we have not heard properly described how by-elections would be organised, or indeed where they would take place. The peers have been expelled from the House of Lords; would they be recalled for the day, given a glass of champagne and invited to vote in the Moses Room? Would they cluster together in White's on a winter morning for a glass of madeira and have the by-elections there? Would the voting be done by post? Special messengers could walk up the gravel drives and through the ducal halls, bearing the ballot papers on silver salvers. Who knows how those by-elections would be organised?
I have some sympathy with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall—Andrews). I pointed out that they will stand as somewhat unusual friends of the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal, whom they have exempted from their amendment. They are happy for those two hereditary peers to continue.
It is clear that the perpetuation of those peers has the Government's blessing. It is no use the Leader of the House trying, as she has done several times during the debate, to pretend that the amendment has nothing to do with her. It is clear from the drafting of the Weatherill amendment that the Government were involved in its preparation, and I give the right hon. Lady the opportunity to deny that. The inclusion of the peculiar words in brackets in subsection (3) in the amendment has clearly been condoned by the Government. They, too, realise that we will be stuck with the Weatherill peers for a long time to come.
We must decide what to do. That particular deal has been described as grubby, and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said that it was a sordid compromise, but deals and compromises often are grubby and sordid. I do not take the particularly purist line adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who said that hereditary peers are unacceptable and nominated peers are unacceptable.
There are degrees of acceptability and I, for one, do not see how a peer whose ancestors have served the public in the legislature simply because one of them was the result of a liaison with the mistress of the sovereign is any less equipped to be a lawmaker than someone who happens to be the Prime Minister's tennis partner and has given the Labour party shedloads of money. I do not draw those fine distinctions. It seems to me that someone whose family have handed down that legislative seat in trust from one generation to another and have retained it through acting responsibly may well claim to have a more legitimate place in the legislature than the Prime Minister's tennis partner.

Mr. Forth: As we share an admiration for that sense of tradition and continuity, does not my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that such people could readily offer themselves for election and be elected overwhelmingly by an electorate that shares our view of them?

Mr. Fallon: That may well happen, who knows? However, that takes us slightly wide of the amendment on which we have to decide tonight.
I, too, without any particular enthusiasm, will be supporting the Weatherill amendment, and I shall do so for four reasons. First, I shall support it because Lord Weatherill is my constituent and, although he does not have a vote, every bit of support counts, and one should support one's constituents. Secondly, I shall vote for the amendment because it gives us an element of continuity, and it is worth reminding ourselves that the other place is the prescriptive part of Parliament. That is why it has survived so long, and the amendment gives us a small measure of continuity and a little link back to the history that has shaped our country.
Thirdly, I shall support the amendment because it gives us a small safeguard against a wholly crony House. It means that the House cannot be filled simply with the Prime Minister's tennis partners and that it will have some Members who have not been appointed by one Prime Minister or another. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I think that that is an important advantage and it will give us a small element of independence.
Fourthly, it can be argued that the very survival of the Weatherill peers will be a standing reminder that there is unfinished business. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to have a wholly elected House, and other hon. Members support their own particular schemes. The peers' survival will remind us that there is a further job of reform to be done, although I do not expect that it will be done.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that the real failing of the Bill is that there is no plan for


stage 2, we relied on the Leader of the House when she told us that she rested her confidence on the capacity not only of this House, but of the country, to come to some consensus as to what should replace our current arrangements. However, what tonight's debate has revealed—in spades—is that, even though there are only about 40 right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, there is no agreement between us, so if there were 659 Members, we would not reach a consensus, unless the measure is driven through against much opposition from one quarter or another. The real failing of the Bill is that it leaves the other place exposed and, as some hon. Members have pointed out, there will be no check on the Executive—at least, we currently have some modicum of a check.
This is the saddest day of the 11½ years during which I have been privileged to serve as a Member of this House. The banishing of most of the hereditary peers and the suspended sentence on the remaining 92 marks the end of a 600-year reign in our history. That is a great sadness for us. 1 am sorry that most people do not realise what is going on in their name, because the issue does not dominate our tabloid press—or even our broadsheet press.
The measure is shameful. It is being introduced—as with so much under the Labour Government—as modernisation; it is the Prime Minister's substitute for a big idea. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, said that he might have discussed the matter when he was a member of the Labour party—it is interesting to see how members of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties move around. He said that people discussed the House of Lords and its abolition.
However, all the evidence shows that people do not support the Government on this matter. Last year, Common Sense for Lords Reform canvassed views and people were asked, "Would you prefer to leave things as they are for the moment, until all the details of the reform have been decided?". No fewer than 68 per cent. supported that proposition, rather than the view that hereditary peers should be abolished before the other details of the reform had been decided. Only 25 per cent. supported that view. It is thus not right to claim that there is popular demand for abolition, although I accept that it formed part of the Labour manifesto.
We do not receive letters from our constituents complaining about the way in which the other place works. It is interesting that no one argues—least of all people all over the country—that the other place is not up to the task of revising the legislation proposed by the Government. Legislation is often given scant scrutiny in this place—whether we or Labour are in government. On the contrary, there is widespread recognition that the other place acts as a reservoir for extensive talent, knowledge and commitment. That means that the other place commands some respect—possibly more than this House.
Notwithstanding the claims of Labour Members, few people argue that their lordships have abused their right to delay legislation. To be sure, they have caused trouble for the Government—as they did for the previous Government. However, they have not abused their right; peers realise that they lack the democratic legitimacy that we enjoy in this place. They know that it is the will of this House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is widening his argument too far. He must come back to the amendment.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing that point to my attention. I was paving the way for my references to the Weatherill amendment. I do not know how the Government can so shamefacedly support the amendment, because, when my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) tabled a similar measure in February, they instructed their troops to vote it down.
As the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) implied, the real reason for the amendment was devoid of principle or of any high motive; it was only to push a squalid deal through this place so as to ensure that the rest of the Government's legislative programme was not disrupted by the other House. Thus, the Government engaged in naked blackmail so that we would deal with the matter today—the very last day of the parliamentary Session—and they could ensure that the rest of their legislation was already in the bag. That is pretty squalid and I think that people outside this place will agree. Having used the measure to bludgeon the other place into submission, the Government now invite us to support it, even though they refused their support when my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest introduced a similar measure earlier this year.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am in two minds as to whether to support the amendment. Part of me said that we should take the Burford approach. Along with many other good Tories throughout the country, I felt that it was good to see an English peer—with the blood of England coursing through his veins—standing up for something in which he believed. On 26 October, I attended the debate in the other place and tried to encourage some of my noble Friends to do the decent thing and to have nothing to do with the Weatherill compromise, but to fight it on principle: either the hereditary principle remained, or they went down fighting.
However, I have reflected on the matter and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), I am inclined to support the amendment—not because it should be part of any kind of deal, or because I am in favour of allowing one or two of our noble Friends to carry on. The balance of advantage lies in our passing the amendment. Although it is an emasculated form of the hereditary principle, it ensures that the principle continues.
I suspect that the real reason that the Government now support the amendment is not simply because they are honouring their side of some bargain, but because they realise that if those 92 peers do not remain, there will be no one to do the work in the other place. Many of those hereditary peers chair Committees and the proceedings of the other House. If they were all to go, it would not be possible for the Government to rely solely on the life peers to man the other place. The Government have taken a pragmatic approach.
I shall vote for the amendment tonight because it will give me great pleasure to see yet another Labour election promise dishonoured. As some of the hon. Friends of the Leader of the House pointed out, they will vote for the Government—if they do—with a heavy heart. They


thought that getting rid of the hereditary peers altogether was a Labour election commitment, and they are not happy with this compromise.
I shall also vote for the amendment because at least the 92 peers will remain as a testimony to the whole country of the part that the hereditary principle can play. If those peers were to go, the monarchy would be left exposed as the only hereditary office in the land, apart, of course, from the senior management of News International—another hereditary organisation in which power goes down the family line. The Leader of the House should be pleased because I understand that some of the power goes down through the female line. I am a monarchist—I support the monarchy. Unless the hereditary also applies elsewhere, the monarch will be exposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks mentioned continuity. That is extremely important. If we were to abandon the hereditary principle altogether, this nation would be the poorer. The continuity and stability of this country are admired. That continuity does not come out of the ether. It comes from our constitutional arrangements. The hereditary principle is one of the essential components of such arrangements, providing roots that go deep into the earth. It is also a good antidote to the word "global", which seems to appear everywhere these days, and helps us when at risk of becoming detached from our roots.
The hereditary principle will be advantageous in ensuring that people who have a sense of duty remain in the other place. Labour Members who are inclined to dismiss the attitude of their lordships do them a disfavour. It is therefore interesting that some have paid tribute to the work of those in the other place.
I should like to quote the words of Lord Wedgewood, whose family seat is not a million miles from the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). He said:
we are applauded as a revising Chamber, which delivers in a non-partisan manner like no other second Chamber of Parliament.
That might be disputed, although he goes on to say:
Why? Because we believe in duty and principle; and we are unpaid."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1999; Vol. 606. c. 287.]
Those words came from the heart. I believe that he spoke for many peers. They are men of principle, and I hope that their sense of duty will continue. One young peer told me, "I do not want to be a full-time politician, but I want to make my contribution in this place from time to time, and I believe that I can do that."
The onus is on those who wish to bring about change to prove that they have something better to put in place of the—perhaps imperfect—mechanism that operates at the moment. I do not believe that they have made such a case. Indeed, on the contrary, they are all over the shop. While any new constitutional arrangements are being set up, we shall face a long period of turmoil, as we are in many others respects in our national life as a result of the Government's policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said that he was worried that those who remain will be hostages to their good behaviour. I hope that the noble Lords and ladies who remain in the other place will never allow themselves to be used as hostages, and that. they

will uphold the sense of independence, impartiality and duty to which I have drawn attention and which I believe is recognised throughout the country. If they do that, who knows, they may sit in the other place for another 600 years.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I echo the final words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is self-cast as the president of the Burford preservation society. He made some extremely good points in his peroration. We owe a great deal to those who have given selfless service over generations—centuries for many families. It is a pity if we allow our zeal, whichever side of the argument we are on, to obscure our sense of gratitude for services that have been rendered. I am delighted to echo the eloquent words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said in a splendid speech that we were all voting for different reasons for fear of something worse. He talked of the Prime Minister exercising patronage in a way that had not been seen since the 18th century. I had not considered the Prime Minister as a latter-day Duke of Newcastle, but it is a thought. We are witnessing a crude exercise of patronage.
We must face the fact, not that we may have a different second Chamber in some years' time, but that a week today, the Queen will open Parliament and we shall have a House of Lords. The issue that we must address is whether the House of Lords that assembles on 17 November 1999 will be better for the presence of the 92 hereditary peers, or the poorer without them.
I believe without equivocation—I was delighted that so many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and for Suffolk, Coastal and my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) believe it, too—that the House of Lords will be better for the 92.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, this is a bad Bill. It is a sad day. This is a shabby little Bill, but it will be improved by the amendment, because the House that will come into existence at the beginning of the next Session will be the stronger and better preserved from the undue influence of patronage if the 92 are present.
I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) taking his place. He made a wonderful speech. I did not agree with all of it, although I concurred entirely with his comments on the danger of the over-mighty Executive. He secured an Adjournment debate on the subject in the small hours of this morning. He knows better than most what an over-mighty Executive can do to this place.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) when he disputes whether the 92 will be able to be their own men and women. They will be the ones who sit in the second Chamber not as a result of patronage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out, something like a quarter of the Members of the House of Lords who assemble on 17 November entered it since 1 May 1997. We must also consider the issue in that context.
I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House cannot bring themselves to vote for the amendment. I respect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although I am bound to point out that on the previous occasion that such an amendment was debated, he voted for it, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Everybody is entitled to a change of mind. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will consider the proposal the lesser of two evils and vote for it again.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has been consistently against the proposal. I admire his consistency, but regret the fact that he does not take the line of those Labour Members whose speeches must have seemed dream contributions to the Whips. I think of the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), who are very happy to stand on their heads and vote for the amendment, having followed the Whips a few months ago and voted against the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).
I point out to the hon. Member for The Wrekin that before he entertains the House with historical facts again, he ought to get the facts right. The Reform Act of 1867, for which he castigated the Tories for voting against, was an Act of Disraeli's Government.
Of all the speeches in this debate, I must single out that of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). This Galahad of debate, who has so entertained us so often, gave a clarion call to abstention. I hope that even he—I know his views on the ultimate reform of the House of Lords—would recognise that the interim House, as it is called by some, which will assemble next week, could exist for some considerable time.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House thought that that would be so, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who said that such a Chamber would still be here when he went, and that he would live to be 100 years old—I hope that he lives to be 150. His comments bear the close consideration of us all.
We return to the central point of whether the House that will meet next week will be the stronger, the more independent of patronage and the better able to discharge its functions because of the experience of those who sit in it if the 92 are present than if they are absent. Therefore, although no one is ecstatic about what we are doing, I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise a vote for the amendment as a sensible vote to cast tonight.
8 pm
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is not in his place, should think again. He made another eloquent denunciation of the powers of patronage—although, in a phrase that I shall always remember, he exempted the Prime Minister, whom he described as
a luminous and beautiful human being".

Doubtless that will lead to a little patronage being exercised in the hon. and learned Gentleman's favour in the not too distant future. What an adornment he would be to the other place.
However, as we near the end of four-and-a-half hours of debate, I have this to say to all my colleagues, especially on the Opposition Benches. Like the Irishman, we would not have started from here.

Mr. Tipping: Or at all.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Or, indeed, at all.
We did not see the need to meddle. We did not see the need to upset. Accepting that the Government had a mandate, we urged them to exercise it with discretion, dignity and proper courage; and to decide what they wanted to replace the second Chamber with, by setting up a royal commission and awaiting its report. The Government came very late to that decision. Even now, they could have waited for the Wakeham commission to report before rushing the Bill through.
We do not like the Bill. We do not think that it is doing a service to the constitution of our nation. Nevertheless, we will vote for the amendment, because it will ensure that the Chamber that meets next week is a better Chamber than it would be without those 92 hereditary peers. On that basis, and that basis alone, I commend the Weatherill amendment to my colleagues. I hope that they will all support it.

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this has been a long debate, following our previous three-hour debate on the principle of the matter, but it is a very important debate and the House should take time to consider the issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) all raised the issue of whether the amendment represented a breach of our manifesto commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked whether changes should be made, even now, in the text of what is now known as the Weatherill amendment, because of fear of delay between stage 1 and stage 2. I repeat what I said earlier in these debates: that is not what the Government have in mind, and it was solely to reassure those who had such fears in the House of Lords that the mechanism to which, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway took exception—the by-election mechanism—was inserted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central questioned the basis on which the shadow elections for the 92 peers have been held. I simply refer him to subsection (5) of the amendment, which gives


that authority. I understand the elections to have been undertaken on the basis of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords.

Mr. Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, I must get on. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I gave way to everyone first time around.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) made a distinctive contribution. I believe that he was saying that we should keep the hereditary principle. That is a legitimate point of view, which others have expressed during the debate.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) spoke to his amendment. I understood that amendment when it was part of a group of amendments. I fear that although I read his amendment and listened to what he said, I did not understand what he was trying to do. What his amendment would do is unclear, but what is clear is that it would add nothing to the Bill's effectiveness. Therefore, I must ask the House to resist it should he press it to a vote.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I really must get on. [Interruption.] With respect, he did not give way to me.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), like my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), accepted the compromise, although with some reluctance, as did the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was pretty rude about everyone else who accepted the amendment, although it turned out in the end that he accepted it, too, because it retained the position of some of those who sat as hereditary peers.

Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am reluctant, but I will give way to the hon. Lady because she did not speak in the debate.

Mrs. Laing: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. On the point that she has just made about those who accept or do not accept the amendment, I recall that on 15 February 1999, when I was trying to elicit from the right hon. Lady whether she would accept an amendment in very similar terms that I had proposed that day, she said to me:
I do not know why the hon. Lady is wasting the Committee's time with this nonsense."—[Official Report, 15 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 681-82.]
Will the right hon. Lady now concede that I was not wasting the Committee's time? I was then urging it to vote for the very measure that she is now urging the House to vote for.

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise if I hurt the hon. Lady's feelings, but it is possible that she misunderstood what I

was saying. I accused her then of wasting the Committee's time because she kept asking us to explain why we were not going to accept her amendment, even though that had already been explained several times. I have enough respect for the hon. Lady's intelligence to think that she understood the explanation the first time that it was given.
However, the hon. Lady's intervention is perfectly timed, because I was about to mention the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), both of whom have taken exactly the same stance but from opposite points of view, in that they supported her amendment but appear to be saying that they will reject a similar one tonight. That is obviously because of the way in which the Bill's passage has been conducted, and our recognition that we might be prepared to accept the amendment at this stage but were not at an earlier stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) quite properly asked what the Conservatives had done to advocate and promote reform in the 18 years during which they had the opportunity. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) suggested that although the Labour party had talked about needing to break the logjam of reform and hence passing the legislation in two stages, previous Labour Governments had not taken action to bring about reform. I believe that I am right in saying that the 1945 Labour Government developed the reduction in the powers of the House of Lords, which was one step towards reform; that the 1964 to 1970 Labour Government famously attempted, and failed, to reform the House of Lords; and that it would have been an act of crass folly for the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government to attempt such a step, given that they hardly had a majority. It has therefore been a consistent theme of Labour Governments to seek reform of the Lords.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) suggested that the Conservative party had in fact progressed towards reform because it had invented the notion of life peers. He was reminded several times in the debate that, having invented the concept of life peers, the Conservative party has consistently used it to reinforce and expand its already substantial majority in the House of Lords.
Throughout the debate, issues have been raised that are familiar to those who have participated in these discussions. There was the usual dismissal of the concession made by the Prime Minister, for the first time in our history, to reduce his power of patronage—as though it were illegitimate for that to be done by a Labour Prime Minister. The notion continued to be trumpeted that, by consistently supporting Conservative Governments and attacking Labour ones, the House of Lords has shown its independence. That notion was amply discredited during the debate, if only by statistics revealing a very different picture.
As he came to the end of his remarks, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, expressing the Conservative party's attitude to the proposals and the amendments, said in one sentence that the way in which the House of Lords had been dealt with was charmless, and in the next that the transitional House would become inferior as a result of the removal of some 659 hereditary peers.
We have had a re-run of many of the arguments that we heard previously, but a consistent feature—and one that is to be regretted—has been the tendency of Opposition Members to denigrate life peers in order to praise the role of hereditaries. That is wrong; we should not denigrate either. Both groups have given service to our country and to our Parliament, and it is right to recognise that. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) let fall in an inadvertent remark at the end of our exchanges, for the whole of its history the Conservative party has resisted reform, in particular reform of the House of Lords, although some Conservative Members have reluctantly accepted the amendment.
Today, we are discussing a further dramatic and historic step in our constitutional development. The proposal enshrined in the amendment is not the Government's proposal—it came from the Cross Benches. However, we regard it as offering a prudent and sensible route towards the early removal of all hereditary peers. It ends the hereditary principle as the basis of a seat in the legislature. It means that 659 hereditary peers will leave their House when the Bill is passed. To have incurred potential delay would have meant that 750 hereditary peers would have retained the right to sit and to disrupt the Government's legislative programme for a further year.
We are taking an historic step tonight. After 89 years, I suggest to the House that it is time that it was taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) wish to press his amendment to a Division?

Mr. Mackinlay: No, Sir. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) wish to press his amendment to a Division?

Mr. Tyrie: No, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in said amendment.—[Mrs. Beckett.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 438, Noes 22.

Division No. 318]
[8.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beard, Nigel


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Alexander, Douglas
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bercow, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Atherton, Ms Candy
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Baldry, Tony
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Barnes, Harry
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barron, Kevin
Blizzard, Bob


Bayley, Hugh
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul





Body, Sir Richard
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Borrow, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Boswell, Tim
Doran, Frank


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Duncan, Alan


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brazier, Julian
Efford, Clive


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Evans, Nigel


Browne, Desmond
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Burden, Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burns, Simon
Flight, Howard


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Fox, Dr Liam


Casale, Roger
Fraser, Christopher


Cash, William
Fyfe, Maria


Caton, Martin
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gardiner, Barry



Garnier, Edward


Chaytor, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chope, Christopher
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gibb, Nick


Clappison, James
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gray, James


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Green, Damian


Clelland, David
Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grieve, Dominic


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Iain
Grogan, John


Collins, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cooper, Yvette
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Corston, Jean
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hanson, David


Cran, James
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cranston, Ross
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Healey, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cummings, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heppell, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hesford, Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hill, Keith


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hinchliffe, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hood, Jimmy


Dawson, Hilton
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hope, Phil


Denham, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dismore, Andrew
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Dobbin, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim






Hoyle, Lindsay
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
McWalter, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Madel, Sir David


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hunter, Andrew
Malins, Humfrey


Hurst, Alan
Mallaber, Judy


Hutton, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Illsley, Eric
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Martlew, Eric


Jamieson, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jenkin, Bernard
Maxton, John


Jenkins, Brian
May, Mrs Theresa


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Meale, Alan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keeble, Ms Sally
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Morley, Elliot


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Kemp, Fraser
Moss, Malcolm


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mountford, Kali


Khabra, Piara S
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Kidney, David
Mudie, George


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mullin, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Norris, Dan


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lansley, Andrew
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Laxton, Bob
Olner, Bill


Leigh, Edward
O'Neill, Martin


Lepper, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Leslie, Christopher
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Letwin, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Levitt, Tom
Page, Richard


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Paice, James


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Paterson, Owen


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pearson, Ian


Lidington, David
Pendry, Tom


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Perham, Ms Linda


Linton, Martin
Pickles, Eric


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Pickthall, Colin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pike, Peter L


Lock, David
Plaskitt, James


Love, Andrew
Pollard, Kerry


Luff, Peter
Pond, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Pope, Greg


McCabe, Steve
Pound, Stephen


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Macdonald, Calum
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McDonnell, John
Prescott, Rt Hon John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Primarolo, Dawn


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Prior, David


McIsaac, Shona
Prosser, Gwyn


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Purchase, Ken


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Quinn, Lawrie


Mackinlay, Andrew
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Rammell, Bill


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rapson, Syd


McNulty, Tony
Raynsford, Nick


MacShane, Denis
Redwood, Rt Hon John





Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roy, Frank
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


St Aubyn, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Salter, Martin
Trend, Michael


Sarwar, Mohammad
Trickett, Jon


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tynan, Bill


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walter, Robert


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Waterson, Nigel



Watts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Snape, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Soley, Clive
Wilkinson, John


Southworth, Ms Helen
Willetts, David


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spring, Richard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wilson, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stevenson, George
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woodward, Shaun


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Streeter, Gary
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Syms, Robert
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Randall, John


Brady, Graham
Robathan, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Robertson, Laurence



Ruffley, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Shepherd, Richard



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Fisher, Mark
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Gill, Christopher



Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tellers for the Noes:


Hancock, Mike
Mr. Eric Forth and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Tyrie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Appointments Commission—
".—(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission ("the Commission") which shall make proposals to the Prime Minister for recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(2) The Commission shall be an advisory non-departmental public body and shall—

a) be appointed in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and may seek his advice about best practice in attracting and assessing potential nominees;
(b) operate an open and transparent nominations system for peers not belonging to, or recommended by, any political party ("the Cross Bench peers");
(c) actively invite nominations by the general public and encourage nominations from professional associations, charities and other public bodies that it judges appropriate;
(d) publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination;
(e) reinforce the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all nominations to life peerages by the political parties; and
(f) scrutinise all candidates for life peerages on the grounds of propriety in relation to political donations, as proposed in the 5th Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

(3) The Commission shall appoint its own Chairman.
(4) It shall, at most every 6 months, and at least every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords.
(5) The Prime Minister may not refuse to submit to Her Majesty the names of those recommended as Cross Bench peers by the Commission, and shall not seek to influence such nominations, save in exceptional circumstances, such as those endangering the security of the realm.
(6) The Commission, in considering nominations as Cross Bench peers, shall not give any additional weight to recommendations from the Prime Minister or the Leaders of other political parties.
(7) Following the passing of this Act the Commission shall make a report annually to Parliament on the recommendations made to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister for the conferment of life peerages, in which it will declare if the following criteria are being observed, namely that—

(a) no one political party commands a majority in the House of Lords;
(b) the Government has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party;
(c) the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of peers in the House remains the same as the proportion of the Cross Bench life peers to the total number of life peers in the House on the day before the passing of this Act; and
(d) more than half of the total membership of the House of Lords is composed of peers who in the opinion of the Commission have experience of, and expertise in, fields other than (or in addition to) politics.

(8) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council, of whom four shall be appointed by a special Commission of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Lord Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords.

(9) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party. and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers."

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 13 and the motion to disagree.

Mr. Tipping: The amendment places the appointments commission on a statutory basis. I remind the House of the Government's commitment to an independent appointments commission set up in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that the commission will be responsible for identifying Cross-Bench peers. The Prime Minister is the first to relinquish his powers of patronage. [Interruption.] It would be interesting to know if any future Tory Prime Minister would do the same; certainly none has done so in the past.

Mr. Graham Brady: Following that assertion, will the Minister say how many peers the Prime Minister, who is supposedly relinquishing that power of patronage, has created?

Mr. Tipping: It is clear that our proposal is to move towards broad parity with the other parties. We believe that no party should have overall control of the House of Lords. I contrast that with the history of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Maclennan: The White Paper went beyond broad parity between the parties. It also referred to the principle of proportionality, reflecting the strength of the parties in the House. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the position?

Mr. Tipping: I can confirm that and I shall speak about it at greater length later.
The Government have been consistent in their commitment to reducing their powers over the House of Lords. We do not intend the transitional House to be under the control of the Government. It would have been absurd to suggest that because 500 life peers have been nominated by eight Prime Ministers, mostly Conservatives, over the past 40 years. Our manifesto was explicit on that point: we said that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords and that the system of appointment of life peers would be reviewed, and we committed ourselves to maintaining an independent Cross-Bench presence of life peers. We also said that, over time, party appointments should more accurately reflect the votes cast at the preceding general election.
8.30 pm
We have been absolutely clear about the fact that we intend to deliver quickly on our commitments. That is important. Our proposals have three elements. First, there is the principle that will determine the numbers in the transitional House; secondly, there is the introduction of an independent appointments commission to nominate


Cross-Bench peers; thirdly, there is the undertaking to forward to Her Majesty the Queen, without interference, the recommendation of other party leaders and the commission.

Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend explain how peers who are not Cross Benchers will be appointed?

Mr. Tipping: That will be a matter for the party leaders, which contrasts with the present arrangement. The Prime Minister has made that clear, and, indeed, has already started to forward recommendations for appointment without any interference.
Let me explain the principles of our approach. We have publicly committed ourselves not to seek more than broad parity between the Government and the main opposition party. As our manifesto stated, our objective was that, over time, party appointees as life peers should reflect more accurately the proportion of votes cast at the last general election. We gained 48 per cent. of the votes cast for the three major parties, while the Conservatives gained 34 per cent. When the House of Lords returned after the recess, we composed only 41 per cent. of the membership, while the Conservatives composed 45 per cent.
On the basis of our manifesto, we would have been entitled to an increase of 40 per cent.—roughly 240 more if we start with the Conservatives' 172 life peers. Instead, we have said that we are seeking about the same number that they have. We have gone much further in restraining our ambitions than we needed to, maintaining our manifesto commitment. We are also committed—this answers a point made earlier—to proportionate creations from the other parties.
The White Paper spelled out our commitment to a continuing independent Cross-Bench element. That not only involves a commitment to maintain the relative strength of that element, but distances my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the process of selection.
That brings me to the question of the appointments commission, which has two important aspects. The first is the concept that the commission is an indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the idea of independent Members of the House of Lords, which also highlights our commitment to the idea that they should be working Members. The second is the reduction in patronage that will clearly ensue.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I assume that the Minister is serious about the concept of a commission, so why would he not include it in the Bill? If the terms of the amendment are not currently acceptable to the Government, the Minister can easily cure that by tabling his own amendment.

Mr. Tipping: Of course that is true, and that is what this decision is about. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will wait a little while, I shall explain why we do not intend to include it in the Bill.
As has been explained many times, we intend the appointments commission to be an advisory non-departmental public body. It will include members of the three main parties, and a majority of independent members. The appointment of the independent members

will be in accordance with the guidelines for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Those guidelines include a number of principles: that appointments should be on merit, that all appointments should be subject to independent scrutiny, and that there should be an open and transparent selection process.

Mr. Brady: Is the Minister aware that the same guidelines apply to appointments to health authorities and trusts? In that context, since 1997 some 232 Labour councillors have been appointed to such bodies, as against 20 Conservatives and 30 Liberal Democrats. The guidelines clearly give no guarantee at all.

Mr. Tipping: I will not stray from the terms of the amendment, but I will answer the question—it is quite simple. In previous years, there was a serious imbalance on health bodies and trusts, but the commissioner will look at the matter. There is nothing to hide. We will look forward, and act on the commission's recommendations.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In regard to representation, the Minister mentioned the three main parties. It is not for me to defend the position of the Scottish National party or that of the parties from Northern Ireland, but will there be no representation for those minority parties?

Mr. Tipping: It is not intended that they will be represented on the appointments commission, but they will be proportionately represented in the other Chamber.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tipping: I will.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister. It will save him from having to make the point later.
The Minister will have noted that the new clause introduced by the Weatherill amendment results in some movement towards proportionality. There has, however, been an increase of a mere 2 per cent. in the representation of the Liberal Democrats, as opposed to a 10 per cent. increase in Labour's representation.

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman merely demonstrates how much more needs to be done. If he takes that view, it might have been helpful if he had voted for the way forward rather than sitting on his hands and taking no part in the debate on the earlier amendment.
How the parties choose their members is, of course, a matter for them, but I hope that they will follow our example of openness. The appointments commission will be encouraged to seek nominations from a wide field, including nominations from members of the public—the so-called people's peers. [Interruption.] Traditionalists groan at that—traditionalists who, perhaps, have not moved on from the 18th century, and have continued to support hereditary peers. How much better it must be for


people to be appointed to the House of Lords because of what they have already achieved, and what they can do for the country.

Mr. Swayne: Is not the proper procedure for choosing "people's peers" a proper election with universal suffrage?

Mr. Tipping: I hope that we shall discuss that point soon. I hope very much that the royal commission will stick to its timetable, and that the House will have an opportunity to express a view on its report during the lifetime of this Parliament. I hope that we can discuss the issues vigorously, and find a solution that will give us a better system than the one we have now.

Mr. Tyrie: When the Labour party made its submission to the Wakeham commission, why on earth was there no mention of any proposal to use election as a means of selecting those who will sit in the upper Chamber?

Mr. Tipping: The Labour party has expressed its view. I was fortunate enough to hear the Conservative party express its view to the Wakeham commission. I will not be drawn on what the Wakeham commission will recommend. I hope that it reports quickly and that we can move on very quickly to the second stage.
We are asking the appointments commission to vet nominations for political peerages, which is currently undertaken by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister told the House that he would be kind enough to say why, if he is so keen on a commission, he will not put it in the Bill. Will he now answer the question?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must restrain himself a little. He has been in the House for many years. I told him that I would address the issue and I will.
The third element of our proposal is that the Prime Minister has publicly committed himself to relinquishing control of the nominations and will not interfere with the nominations from other political parties. That process has already started.
We are already going much further than any Prime Minister has ever gone. In debates in both the House of Commons and the other place, there has been an attempt to suggest that, although the present Prime Minister's promises can be accepted, one cannot be sure of the future. I am confident of the honour of any Labour Prime Minister, but is the Conservative party saying that it cannot have the same certainty? By backing the amendment, it must doubt its own integrity.
Another question has been frequently addressed: if our commitment is clear, what is the objection to putting the provision on a statutory basis? That is the basis of the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tipping: I want to deal with that question after giving way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister has said that the Labour party is against election and prefers nomination.

If he has doubts about any future Government not following the practice of nomination, the way to protect against that is by putting it on a statutory basis. So far, all his arguments are entirely consistent with the contents of the amendment that he is inviting the House to strike out. Will he now move to the actual point of the debate: why are the Government rejecting proposals which they keep claiming they are in favour of?

Mr. Tipping: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is my neighbour, of what I said: I want to deal with that question. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), he should restrain himself for a moment.
Our main contention is that such a move is inappropriate and unnecessary: there is no need to have legislation to establish a body of the type that we have in mind. Advisory non-departmental bodies are normally established without statutory provision. That does not affect either their standing or effectiveness. The Neill committee itself is such a body. Debate on the issue has frequently confused the question of the Prime Minister's role in the matter. The two are separate issues. We can take the Prime Minister out of the process, as far as it is possible to do so, without any statutory provision.
We are also talking about a transitional process. Why make elaborate statutory provisions for something that is only temporary? Why introduce one form of appointments commission by statute, when it is possible that we may receive recommendations for a different approach? The royal commission's terms of reference give scope for that. The clause is elaborate and raises as many questions as it answers.
Legislation, by necessity, needs to cater for all foreseeable circumstances. A non-statutory arrangement can lay out the broad principles, which can be developed and adjusted accordingly, which cannot be done as easily with legislation. As I have said, there are many gaps in the provision. For example, what would be the terms of service for commission members?

Mr. Mackinlay: One of the attractive features of the Lords amendment is that it proposes an annual report to Parliament by the commission. We do not have that under the Nolan, or Neill-style committee—not automatically. We will want some guarantee that, in the appointment of legislators—the appointment of Members of Parliament—an opportunity is built into the system whereby we can scrutinise the appointments commission and ensure that it is doing its work and has not been manipulated in any way. It must be the subject of scrutiny. That is our role here. The amendment contains that provision.

Mr. Tipping: It must be the case that the appointments commission, whether it is a statutory or a non-departmental public body, is accountable. It will produce reports. I am confident that hon. Members on both sides of the House will review its operations and challenge it if it is not effective.
8.45 pm
Our proposals in the White Paper were not developed to be statutory. They cannot simply be lifted verbatim and put into statute, as Lords amendment No. 2 attempts to do. The new clause itself is wrong and deficient. It is also


internally inconsistent. To take the most obvious example, how can a requirement that members of the appointments commission be recruited under the Nolan principles seriously be reconciled with the requirement that they are all to be Privy Councillors? The reference to the Privy Council is also a statutory innovation: no other position in public life has a statutory right or requirement to Privy Council membership.
We believe that it is neither necessary nor worth while to pursue that particular amendment. No one has tabled amendments that address the new clause's internal problems. The current version of the new clause is the only one that is available. The House should not legislate to include in an Act of Parliament a provision that we know is as internally flawed as the current one.

Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman does not like Privy Councillors, he is at liberty to amend the new clause to specify a different group—perhaps anyone but Privy Councillors. 1 am sure that Opposition Members would accept that.

Mr. Tipping: I am entitled to recommend and advocate the approach that I believe in, which is an appointments commission established as I have described.
Were it not for Lords amendment No. 2, substantial progress would already have been made in establishing the appointments commission. Treasury permission to begin implementation of the commission has already been secured. Indeed, work had already begun in establishing it. However, Lords amendment No. 2 has brought a premature halt to that progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It would have been inappropriate for progress in establishing the appointments commission to be made while we were considering an amendment from the other place that proposed dealing with the matter in statute.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the greatest respect, so far no reason that the Minister has given to reject the amendment has made the slightest sense. If the Treasury has authorised establishing an independent commission, the fact that the other place—entirely in line with the Government's proposals—has proposed a statutory basis for the commission should not stop preparations. Which feature of the proposals no longer attracts the Government? The argument about Privy Councillors was incomprehensible. The Minister has not given one reason why all the members should not be Privy Councillors. It is also entirely irrelevant that the Bill has made no mention of Privy Councillors. What is the Minister's objection to any part of the proposal, and why should any part of the proposal stop the Treasury financing preparations for the commission?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we have not made greater progress. I take the view that it would be an insult to Parliament—to the

Lords and to the Commons—to proceed with our own plans while we were considering an amendment proposing establishing the commission in statute.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Tipping: No, I shall not give way again—I have already given way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman plenty of times. He also asked why the appointments commission cannot be statutory. As I said, our own proposals will work.

Mr. Forth: Trust me.

Mr. Tipping: What is important is what works, and our proposals will work; they are well tried and well tested. The appointments commission will operate initially during the transitional House, and it may well be that, in the light of the royal commission's report, we shall want to adjust the process. However, that will depend on the Wakeham report.
As I said, I should have hoped that we could make greater progress on establishing the appointments commission. Unfortunately, a stalemate has developed. Our desire quickly to implement an appointments commission has been unnecessarily delayed by an insistence on its statutory basis. Today, however, we shall have the opportunity to break the logjam. If the amendment is rejected, the way will be clear to set in motion again the process of establishing the commission.
Whatever the critics may say, we want and are determined to make quick progress. Our proposals will work; our route is well established; our desire is absolutely clear. We will reduce the powers of patronage in the interim House. With that, I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I have heard some speeches in my time, but never have I heard such a threadbare speech from someone on the Government Front Bench. It was an extraordinary speech. The Minister, who is an amiable cove, was blasted out of the water by his constituency neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It was an Alice in Wonderland speech—if I say it three times, it is true.
If the Prime Minister genuinely wants these appointments to be conducted by an independent appointments commission, what is the logical objection to having a statutory commission? The Minister has not advanced one plausible reason to vote against the amendment. Is he saying that because the House of Lords passed the amendment, the Government were suddenly struck by legislative paralysis, totally incapable of tabling amendments of their own and of making it a little more workable if they thought it not workable? Are they totally incapable of making any progress with their own appointments commission, so that the Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box tonight and tell us a little more about that? The whole thing is absolutely incredible.
The Lords amendment seems very modest. Our colleagues in another place have taken the Government at face value. They have said that they accept and welcome the fact that the Government are going to have an independent commission and that that is a good idea. They have therefore said, "Let us put it on the face of the Bill,


set it up on a statutory basis and, what is more, go to the Government's White Paper to select the criteria for the commission." I cannot for the life of me understand what is objectionable or wrong about that.
The faces of some of the Minister's hon. Friends were studies indeed. Their looks of amazed incredulity as he stumbled through the reasons for not doing so were wonderful to behold. No one in this House who has studied the question could attach any credibility to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Even tonight, amendments were tabled to Lords amendment No. 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) withdrew them, but they had tabled them and they were debated. If the Government had chosen to table some amendments, they would most certainly have been selected and debated. If they had done so, the Minister could have told us why Privy Councillors were not appropriate, or why the new clause did not fit and where we could improve it. But no—the hon. Gentleman merely turned the amendment down, without giving any sensible reason.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made a good point about the annual report to Parliament. The Minister replied that there are other annual reports to Parliament. What he seemed not fully to understand is that this is a unique—for once, I use that word totally correctly—situation. We are talking about the appointment of legislators, not of members of health trusts or anything else, important as they are and valuable as the work that they do is. We know from the previous debate that there is considerable anxiety among Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Thurrock, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—about the power of patronage and the influence that the Prime Minister will have.
The Minister's comments about the Prime Minister's appointments commission did not address the central issue that it will be appointed by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hogg: What is more, did not the Minister speak about adjusting the situation, should developments require it? Who would adjust the remit of an independent appointments commission?

Sir Patrick Cormack: There are only one or two people who could do that—the Prime Minister or the all-knowing, all-seeing, fingers-in-everything Mr. Campbell—and by Jove, they would if they did not like the situation. The Prime Minister has appointed one quarter of the strength of the House of Lords as it will be next week. He has created 171 peers—some of them a trifle odd—in the past two and a half years. That is more than the previous Prime Minister appointed in seven years. Those are facts, not just things that I am dredging up from the back of my mind. Against that background, is it any wonder that there is a credibility gap in the House—on both sides—and outside?
Let us say that we trust the Prime Minister. I believe the Minister to be eminently honourable and trustworthy. I say that entirely without sarcasm. However, that is not sufficient. Who is to say that there will not be others who will manipulate? We have seen certain examples over the past two and a half years of the skills of manipulation in high places. If we had a statutory body set up as the

amendment suggests—the Minister knows that it was passed by a substantial majority in the other place—those fears would not exist. People would believe that the body was transparent. It would be set up for a specific purpose.
It is a very weak argument to say that the interim House of Lords will not last for long. As we said in the previous debate, we do not know how long it will last. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield thinks that it will last for at least 25 years. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) thinks that it will last for a fair time. There are others who think that it will not last for so long. There are some who do not want it to last for very long. However, it is clear that for the immediately foreseeable future—I choose my words with great care—that will be the second Chamber. It is crucial that it should have the respect of the nation. For all that has been said about the House of Lords that we are getting rid of and all the blemishes that some may think it has, it has certainly enjoyed the respect of the nation.

Dr. Godman: No it has not.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but let me concede for a moment that he may be right. If he is, it is all the more important that the new House should have such respect, untarnished by suspicion.
It is crucial that we accept the amendment. It would not damage the Government's legislative plans or solutions. It would not alter the Bill or the composition of the other place from 17 November. It would merely ensure that future appointments were made by a statutory body that could not be manipulated, tinkered with, messed around, suspended or adjusted for political reasons by anybody who felt that the situation might be a little uncomfortable at the moment.
I am sorry that not more hon. Members are present this evening. I urge every hon. Member who wants to have respect for the integrity of both Houses of Parliament to support the amendment putting the commission into the Bill, so that, when the Queen gives the Bill her Royal Assent, we can all feel that, although we have an imperfect body—we would all agree with that; some of my right hon. and hon. Friends want radical change, others more minor change—we at least have confidence in the system that will exist for the immediate future.

9 pm

Mr. Leigh: Is it not rather irrelevant whether the measure is in statute? Is not the appointments commission a fig leaf for what we know, from Lady Richard's diaries, to be the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, which is that they do not want an elected second Chamber? What we really want is an elected second Chamber.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend speaks for himself, and it is a view which is shared by many. We do not yet know what the Wakeham commission will recommend. The official position of the Conservative party is to wait to see what the Wakeham commission has to say, after which we shall debate it and come to a considered conclusion. It may or may not be that advocated by my hon. Friend.
For the foreseeable future, however, we know what we have, and this is more than a fig leaf. The appointments commission should be a statutory body in which people can have confidence so that they at least feel that the second Chamber cannot be packed in a manipulative way by unscrupulous politicians. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Fisher: I failed to follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). He makes a passionate plea for the commission's independence, but, according to the amendment, it would have such limited powers as to be meaningless. It could nominate only Cross-Benchers. What about nominations from other parties? If the whole point of the commission is to ensure confidence and independence, it should scrutinise and nominate all the appointments from all the political parties.
If the hon. Gentleman were to persuade us to carry the amendment, cronyism would simply spread from all the political parties. It is not clear what the amendment means by political parties. Does that include the Referendum party or the Green party, or some new party that can nominate itself? The amendment is ill thought out and ill drafted and will not achieve the ends that the hon. Gentleman, I think with all sincerity, believes that it will. It will not provide independence and confidence in the new process.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does no more than say that the amendment does not go far enough, and 1 agree. If it went as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests, doubtless he would support it.

Mr. Fisher: Absolutely. As hon. Members know, I am strongly in favour of a totally elected Chamber. But if for the foreseeable future we are to have a Chamber for which all new appointments are nominated, not elected, it is essential, to avoid accusations of cronyism by any party or by anybody, that those nominations should be made and scrutinised by an arm's-length, independent body that is not in the grip of any political party or of the political process. Surely nothing else will do. We have to have an independent commission with complete powers over all nominations.
The political parties, like everyone else, can make recommendations and nominations to the commission, but the commission should have the power of appointment. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Liberal party should not have those powers; otherwise, we should have a rigged and manipulated second Chamber.
On one level, I should be glad to see an appointed second Chamber discredited in that way, but the pain and suffering for the democratic process in the interim are not worth the winning of the point that an appointed second Chamber is completely unsatisfactory. If we are to have an appointed second Chamber, let it be the best that we can have. We must have an independent commission.
I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister is rejecting the proposal for other reasons. He does not want a totally independent and arm's-length commission. However, it is unclear what he is asking us to reject the amendment in

favour of. The Government have not published guidelines, and we do not know what sort of commission they are intending. Could the Minister say when the Government intend to publish the proposals for the commission? What powers will it have? On what grounds will it be able to reject appointments? What will happen to the non-Cross-Bench element? The Government's position seems as unclear as the amendment is unsatisfactory.
The only way to resolve the problem is to reject the amendment but for the Government to give an undertaking that they will publish guidelines as soon as possible and will make no nominations or appointments to the second Chamber until those guidelines have been published, debated and approved by this Chamber. Otherwise, the second Chamber will be open to the accusation of cronyism.
That may cause problems with the new year's honours, as I am sure the Government want to get on with appointing new Members to the second Chamber. However, it would be wholly unsatisfactory to have another round of nominated people—by the Opposition and the Government—in the second Chamber. We need the commission to be up and approved by this Chamber before there are any more nominations to the second Chamber.

Mr. Maclennan: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). The Government's case for not accepting the amendment would have been much strengthened had they been more firm and active in explaining their intentions. The principle has been enunciated before, but the detail has not.
I found uncompelling the argument that we had to wait on the conclusion of the House before setting out the machinery to give effect to the Government's principles. That has not been operated by Governments before. Preparatory steps of an Executive kind are often taken by Governments to enable them to take action as soon as the House has reached a view. It does not pre-empt the decision, but enables one to be made in a timely way. On this occasion, we have not had that action from the Government.
I hope that, as a result of the debate, we shall at least prise from the Government an indication of how and when they intend to deal with the appointment of Cross-Bench peers. As soon as the legislation is enacted, this problem will be a live one.
I disagree entirely with the view that it is either appropriate or necessary for the arrangements to be based upon statute. If it does not need to be the result of statute to operate effectively, I see no reason why that is required. The precedent is far from clear. We have an arm's-length scrutiny committee which is not a statutory body, and we have other means of making appointments. We need not clutter the statute book, or go into detailed consideration of precisely how this measure is to operate, and then set those deliberations in stone prior to the recommendations of the Wakeham commission.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not persuaded that the commission should be put on a statutory basis. Surely the answer is that appointments and the use of patronage are matters of great sensitivity which Governments can misuse. It is extremely important to


make it more difficult for Governments to misuse such powers than it would be if the commission were not on a statutory basis.

Mr. Maclennan: I am not clear how making the process statutory would necessarily make such misuse more difficult. It is important not to get this out of proportion. We are talking about the Cross Benchers, who form only 20 to 25 per cent. of peers. The amendment does not cover the bulk of appointed peers who will be nominated following the enactment of this legislation.
There is some implication that a statutory arrangement confers special legitimacy on those who are appointed under it— legitimacy that they might not have had under another system. I do not regard that as a desirable outcome. The appointed Cross Benchers would be no more legitimate than those appointed by other means, and a great deal less legitimate than elected members of the upper House would be.
My final point reinforces what the Minister fairly said about this being intended not as a lasting arrangement but as an interim scheme pending stage 2 of Lords reform. I reiterate that that should not be too long delayed. In the meantime, we can put flexible machinery in place that could be adjusted and adapted according to recommendations from any source. That is a sensible way to proceed and will carry considerable clout and credibility if Ministers say more precisely, as soon as may be, how and when they wish to do it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Under any sensible legislative process, we would have had this debate at the House of Commons Committee stage of the Bill. It is worth noting again that the Bill that was presented to us was, to use the term offered by the Clerk, tightly drawn. It did not allow amendments in the House of Commons, so we could not probe or suggest improvements. That was demonstrably a large flaw in our process. The Lords were able to table amendments such as the one that we are debating, flawed as it might be. The measure has not had the scrutiny that it would normally have had in the Committees of the two Houses. In a sense, we have been denied our Committee stage. I make that point in case any colleagues not in the Chamber are irked that some of us are detaining the House. It is an important issue, and we have a duty to scrutinise and examine it.
I have grave misgivings about the legitimacy of so-called Cross Benchers in an appointed House. Whom do independents or Cross Benchers represent but themselves? In this place, we are distinguished because we have the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who has a demonstrable mandate. He can justifiably be proud of that; he has faced an electorate. The Cross Benchers in the House of Lords, however, do not attract me at all. However, I find common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and disagree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), in that the issue of selecting Cross Benchers is indivisible from the appointment of peers from political parties.
My great concern about what has been proposed is no personal criticism of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or their successors, but a matter of human

nature. People do not appoint to bodies persons who can be an irritant—or at least, it takes a very special person to do it.
One of the interesting things about an electoral process, albeit a flawed one, is that some of us get under the net and manage to get elected. One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that it contains mavericks, loose cannons, the bloody-minded, the irascible, the eccentric and, sometimes, the bad. Taken together, that cocktail of personalities adds up to a strength.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: Not for a minute, because I am on a roll.
It is in the nature of an appointed House that it will contain those who match the image and likeness of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. It is naive to suggest otherwise. I therefore reluctantly, and with regret, conclude that, for however many years we have the interim appointed House, we need the Cross Benchers to provide that which would be denied by appointments made through the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
I have said publicly elsewhere that it is still within the powers of the current Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to ensure a degree of transparency in the party nomination processes. No doubt the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats could have some form of regional procedure, and I cannot see why that process would not throw up people for consideration by the party leader. For that matter, we in the Labour party should make similar provision.
The case for that can be found in my surprise at the elevation to the other place of certain people nominated by the party leaders. I should like to conduct an audit of some of those people to discover, for example, how long they had been members of the Labour party; of which Labour party they were members; for which Labour party they had delivered leaflets; and for which Labour candidates they had been prepared to sit outside in the rain taking numbers at the polling station. Although some of them would qualify, others would find it a great strain to demonstrate that they had stood by Labour in bad times as well as good.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us suspect that the audit conducted is of a different nature?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am lost for words, but 1 recall promising to give way to my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to consider a thought that crossed my mind as he gave his accurate appraisal. Will he define what qualities a person would need to have to be appointed to be a Cross Bencher, if he was not someone who had served a party?

Mr. Mackinlay: My point is that nominations by party leaders will result in clones—I do not use that word in an extravagant sense, but such a result is in the nature


of things. A good parliamentary debate requires people who are able to tell the Government that they have, on occasion, got it wrong. One of the great flaws of Margaret Thatcher's period was that there was no one left at the Cabinet table to tell her that the poll tax was a daft idea. In a parliamentary Chamber, such people are needed, but the selection procedure for party nominees as drafted will not provide them. I reluctantly conclude that the Cross Benchers are needed.
The reason for my feelings on the subject is that I recall discussing with a member of the current Government the democratic deficit in respect of Gibraltar. The Minister said I probably had a point, but then realised what I was up to, looked me in the eye and said, "You don't mean that bloody fool Bossano, do you?" Joe Bossano is no fool, but he is certainly an irritant, and I do not believe that party caucuses or groups will result in the appointment of irritants.
The Lords amendments are flawed: for example, I find it repugnant that they require that the members of the commission should be Privy Councillors. Although I do not mind people holding the title—I do not lie awake at night worrying about it—I want the Privy Council to be abolished. Any further institutionalisation of that club would be wrong. Even now in the House of Commons, we sometimes see a two-tier system comprising those who are Privy Councillors and those who are not, and that irritates me.
I think that the Lords amendment is flawed, but not fatally flawed. In addition, it states that the appointments commission will not consider for nomination to the Cross Benches peers who are members of a political party. That is too prescriptive, for the reasons that I have explained earlier. It is possible to be act independently while remaining loyal to a political party.
I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of the Government's proposals. I was attracted by his idea that the body should exercise the function of the political honours scrutiny committee. That would cheer me a bit if I thought that there would be an annual report to Parliament. I look the Minister in the eye: if nothing else happens tonight, it is surely not beyond his mandate—granted by those who are not in the Chamber but who will want an account of the proceedings—to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the commission will give an annual report to Parliament. There should at least be a reasonable chance of allocating some parliamentary time to debate that report on the Floor of the House.
We have an obligation to scrutinise the appointments commission. The gravity of this matter is sometimes lost: we are talking about the appointment of Members of Parliament, albeit in another Chamber. That duty cannot be taken lightly, and we must build in guarantees that we will oversee the commission's work.
I have a feeling that this independent body will comprise the great and the good, and a few of the glitterati. That troubles me greatly. I rarely use the term "class"—I certainly would not have used it during the previous debate. However, I believe that Parliament—even this Chamber—has an increasingly narrow social base. One of my party's strengths was that it threw up

people who used to be called blue collar workers. Such people had to learn the tools of their trade and had some experience of life outside; that enriched the Chamber.
If we are candid, we will agree that today's Members of Parliament are pretty grey. We are of a similar ilk. In a democracy, we should try to ensure that our legislative assemblies are a microcosm of the nation. Therefore, we should work hard to guarantee a mix of Members—and that is not happening at present. Although there may be divisions between left and right—the divide is pretty narrow nowadays—hon. Members come from similar social groupings. We must reverse that trend.
I do not see how the appointments commission will do that. The issue is extremely important in an unelected House. In our democracy, the party system still sometimes provides some variance from the increasingly grey membership. This is a challenge for those who serve on the appointments commission. We must not forget about the people from our industrial areas: the working class people who often do not have the opportunity to be represented in politics. [Interruption] This is an important issue, despite the levity on the opposite Benches. This House of Commons was more representative a few years ago than it is today. That is due partly to social changes, better education opportunities and the changing nature of political parties. I deeply regret that there are few grandees left in the Tory party—I can see only one. Where have all the nice people gone? And where are the people who represent the working class traditions of the Labour party? They are greatly diminished in number.
We have to be mindful of that point, particularly in relation to an unappointed House, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board when he replies. I hope also that he will not forget about the annual report to Parliament.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I follow the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), with whom I largely agreed on some points, I shall begin by agreeing with him about the extremely unsatisfactory way in which this matter has been debated. This serious subject has had to be considered at this late stage, in a debate on a Lords amendment, because the House has not previously been able to address it.
The reform of the upper House is in danger of producing a so-called transitional House that has even more elements of Gilbert and Sullivan that the one that it will replace. This has been a complete dog's breakfast from beginning to end. The Bill was introduced by a Government who want simply to abolish hereditaries and replace the upper House with a wholly nominated House within prime ministerial patronage. To move on from that, they are now, without having clear views about their objectives, putting everything in the hands of a commission that will make recommendations. We are discussing a key feature of an interim reform that may last for many years.
I echo the hon. Member for Thurrock's point that we are talking about how large numbers of people will become Members of Parliament. We are discussing the appointment of legislators, not health authority chairmen or magistrates, although they are important. We are talking about people who will play a role in the government of this country.
It is only by accident that we are able even to debate how the upper House should be nominated, because the Bill was so tightly drawn that the matter could not be debated in the House when the Bill was first considered. Because the upper House passed this amendment—which, for the lack of anything else, I approve of—we are now able to discuss the matter in an interesting debate, but, it has to be said, in a perfunctory manner, at the last moment, at the end of a Session. Obviously, everyone assumes that the Government will trundle through, giving themselves a free hand in how to proceed, and that they will come back to us later and tell us what arrangements they will put in place for the nomination of Cross-Bench peers.
I agree with most of those who have spoken so far. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that the amendment is, in any event, second best. I am in favour of a wholly elected upper House, but we face, in the interim, an upper House that will now be dominated by patronage, which I regard as second best.
Their lordships have given us the opportunity to say that at least a small part of that patronage should be free of prime ministerial control and partisan or party political control. Unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I think that we should grasp at that, because it would be nice to have some Members of the upper House going at least some way towards independence, which would give them a little more legitimacy as legislators than those who simply come through the party machines that will nominate all the other peers. I therefore support the amendment.
What astonishes me is why, given that the House has got round to discussing this matter, the Government want to remove the proposals for ensuring the independence of the nomination of Cross-Bench peers. I understood that the proposals were made by the Government. Their lordships have taken the Government at face value and done them the courtesy of including the Government's proposals in the Bill. However, the unfortunate Minister is, with the greatest respect, left doing his manful best to persuade us, without giving us any serious reason whatever, to remove from the Bill, at the Government's behest, their only proposals—and what I thought, until this evening, was their preferred route for producing Cross-Bench peers.
It would be ridiculous to withdraw the proposals, which, faute de mieux, are the best that we have. The House should not lightly dismiss the proposals and wait to see what the Government come up with next. We should not say, "Let's leave it to the Government. We do not want the House to have any legislative say in the process."
I have already dealt with my response to the speech by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who, I think, agreed with some of my criticisms. The idea that it does not matter whether the commission is statutory, because one can compare it with the Nolan committee or the scrutiny of the honours list, falls, because we are talking about how Members of Parliament should be nominated.
The most tedious details of the laws determining how Members of this House are elected are rightly subjected to interminable debate and considerable controversy whenever any changes are made. It is no good for us simply to accept the measure. There should be a

legislative proposal in the Bill for the nomination and appointment of Cross-Bench peers, but this measure is the best one we have.
9.30 pm
I turn to the feebleness of the Minister's arguments. I respect the Minister, who represents a constituency that borders my own, and I know him to be an able man, but the poor man was equipped with no arguments whatever in favour of the proposition that he was instructed to tell us we should support. As I recall, he deployed only two arguments; I shall deal with them briefly.
The first argument was that we should trust the Prime Minister. I do. Not even the Prime Minister could easily go back on his word and say that he had changed his mind and that he would, after all, nominate all the Members of the other place. However, I should like to hear a little more detail before I am asked to trust a Prime Minister. The Minister shot himself in the foot when he made it clear that he would not trust a Conservative Prime Minister. He made a few partisan remarks about what might happen if our present, noble and trustworthy Prime Minister were to be replaced by someone from the Conservative side of the House—there might be changes.
The answer is clear: if one has suspicions of any kind, one puts the preference of the House into legislative form. In that case, any subsequent Prime Minister—even the present Prime Minister—must at least introduce substantial legislation to change the proposals. Why should it be a matter of trust in the Prime Minister? In this case, we could include provisions in the Bill that reflect what the Prime Minister appears to have endorsed in the past. As far as I am aware, these are the only proposals that the Government have ever produced on this subject—they have not been changed since they were introduced.
However, I suspect that there may have been changes. The Minister's second argument was that the noble Lords made a terrible error when they included the Government's proposals in the Bill, because that meant that the Government had to stop working on their proposals. Apparently, once the proposals were put in statutory form, the work that was already under way to prepare the arrangements for nominations for Cross-Bench peers had to stop. The Minister produced the extraordinary argument that it would have somehow been an affront to the other place or to Parliament to carry on spending money on preparing the arrangements.
The Minister said that the work was halted and that that had caused delay. Plans were being made to have everything in place by 1 January 2001, but the upper House passed the amendment and the work had to stop. I do not understand that argument, especially if the work in hand was in line with the Government's only announced proposals, which are the ones before us. If the Government were preparing proposals for a commission to nominate Cross-Bench peers, and the other place passed an amendment to give them a statutory form, why did the work have to stop?
It sounds as though the work that was in hand did not match these proposals. The Government had work in hand—with Treasury approval—for some other system of nominating Cross-Bench peers, but they stopped it because the upper House put their proposals into statutory form. If work was in hand, why cannot the Minister tell


us on what it was based? How did it differ from the measure before us? If he tells us that it was not different, why did it have to be stopped just because the other place passed an amendment?
The whole argument is a complete non sequitur. The Minister seems to be arguing against what he was really aiming at. He wants the Government to be given a completely free hand to devise whatever system they want. They do not want to be tied to their first proposals, or to the current proposals. Even when the Minister was pressed to tell us which feature he found objectionable or otiose, and what he might have to remove, he could not think of anything. The best he could come up with—he received a little support from the hon. Member for Thurrock—was that currently the measure requires that every member of the commission should be a Privy Councillor. That is apparently a shocking suggestion—although not because the Minister is against the members being Privy Councillors; he did not say that they would not all be Privy Councillors. He produced an amazing precedent, which someone in the Cabinet Office must have dug out for him, to the effect that no one has ever mentioned Privy Councillors in a Bill. This is a moving moment; for the first time, we are mentioning Privy Councillors in a Bill. However, for the life of me, I cannot see why that is fatal to the whole proposal.
If the Government do not like the present Privy Councillors—I declare an interest; I am a Privy Councillor—they could easily appoint others when they put them on the commission. So it is no great shakes whether Privy Councillors are mentioned or not. That was the one and only feature of the Lords amendment which the Minister could think he might not want to follow in practice.
The whole matter is an absurdity. With great respect to the Minister, his speech was an absurdity. It compounded the ludicrous way in which the House has been asked to handle a very important feature of constitutional reform. We are, for heaven's sake, talking about the second Chamber of the British Parliament, yet the matter has been handled in a Mickey Mouse fashion from beginning to end. Even at this late stage, we are being left to imagine what the Government will propose—later than they intended—for nomination of Cross-Bench peers. None of us is allowed to know today what the Government intend if they are indeed to depart from the proposals in the amendment.
The House is not being treated with any respect. An important issue is being brushed aside. Somebody should have found some arguments for the Minister to use. Given that supporting the other House in the amendment is the only way in which we may at least reduce the potential for some patronage and guarantee some independence in the appointment of temporary peers who will form the second House, we should support it and not allow the Government to wheel through the House, using their majority, a proposition for which they have no sensible argument.

Dr. Godman: I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Before I do so, I offer my apologies to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for interrupting his

comments on the respect that people have for the other place. I should point out that all recent opinion polls in Scotland on the subject of the governance of the United Kingdom have shown that there is diminishing respect for the other place as it is currently structured. Incidentally, a more recent opinion poll suggested that 80 per cent. of Scots believed that Scotland would be independent within 20 years—but that is another thing.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that, as a former shipwright to trade, I find it a great honour and privilege to be in this place.

Mr. Mackinlay: Alas, my hon. Friend is a dying breed.

Dr. Godman: No, Lord Dixon is another former shipwright. I hope that he stays on despite the changes.
I have some concerns about the Government's proposals. I support totally the perspective of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). If we are to have a bicameral system, the second House must be elected and must represent the multinational state in which we live. I shall come to that point in a minute.
Unless the proposals are amended, hundreds of thousands of voters will be deprived of having their concerns expressed during the commission's deliberations. Am I right in thinking that Scottish judges are given the privilege of becoming Cross Benchers, and that that will not change?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that the commission should not be composed of Privy Councillors. We should move on from electing the great and the good to deliberate on such profound matters. The role given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to deal with areas of conflict between the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament was a major mistake under the Scotland Act 1998. That, however, is another story.
Subsection (9) of the amendment says:
One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons".
That means that the hundreds of thousands of electors in Northern Ireland are excluded from this scheme of things. As a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland—as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party's Northern Ireland committee—I find that unacceptable. We have a number of MPs representing the 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland; we have Ulster Unionist Members, Democratic Unionist Members and my hon. Friends representing the SDLP.
I do not hold any brief for the Scottish National party, but say what you will about that party, a substantial minority of people in Scotland actively support it. I hold no brief for SNP Members; they absent themselves from the Chamber when we are discussing all sorts of issues that are of paramount importance to the people of Scotland, such as defence or international relations. However, the views of very many Scottish voters will not be represented as they should be.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not wholly right. If he looks at the proposed new clause, which may of course be defective, he will see that the commission must consist


of eight members, of whom only three are specified. That leaves considerable discretion as to who makes up the five.

Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I would hope that these minority parties might be represented among the other five representatives. Somehow I doubt that, given the way the new clause is drafted, but I make a plea to the Minister that especially at a moment like this, when things are not going too well with the negotiations in Northern Ireland on the Good Friday agreement, we do not want to send a message to people in Northern Ireland that we are not really concerned about their representation on a body as important as this.
I envisage that we shall go through a transitional phase before the House debates—I hope thoroughly, and in a tough-minded way—the recommendations of the Wakeham commission. From there, we should move on to legislation. I hope that some of us will be there to argue the case for an elected second Chamber, but, in the meantime, the Minister and his ministerial colleagues really must reconsider the composition of the appointments commission, because it is not good enough to be seen to push to one side the people of Northern Ireland and elsewhere in this multinational state of ours.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). He and I are members of the British-Irish parliamentary group. We frequently visit the Province together. We therefore experience mutual exposure to revolutionary fervour. I was prevented from speaking on the Weatherill amendment by the meeting of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said in that regard.
I declare an interest, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did, as a member of the Privy Council. I should be entirely prepared to disclaim the involvement of the Privy Council in the amendment, although I am more sensitive about the future membership of the Privy Council than is my right hon. and learned Friend.
The question at the heart of this serial legislation, as it will become because of the limited nature of the Bill, is what the future powers of the House of Lords should be. I do not share the confidence, expressed by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in the previous debate, that the Government will necessarily have the stamina and the courage to proceed to a second Bill.
9.45 pm
It will be to the shame of the Labour party if its self-stressed modernising ambitions are limited to the relatively simple task of abolishing the hereditary principle when there is a Labour majority of almost 200 in this House, and if the Government do not proceed to the more serious and ultimately more worthwhile and demanding task of redefining the powers of the second Chamber.
Reform of scrutiny by Parliament is already the constitutional flavour of the next decade—the first in the new millennium. Two bodies, of one of which I am a modest member, are examining the issue. Although the

Government may not like it, the campaign enjoys considerable intellectual support outside Parliament. An appointments commission, which is the subject of the amendment, established by statute is an important underpinning of the whole process.
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government have no quarrel with the underlying principle and purpose of the amendment, but the Government's reluctance to accept it at this stage, as demonstrated by the Minister's speech, is profoundly ominous. The Government may imply that the amendment would impede a ready transition to stage 2, and I dare say that they regard that as evidence of their commitment to stage 2. However, in the previous debate, the hon. Member for South Thanet was not widely supported on the Labour Benches in his confidence that we would move to stage 2.
The Government cannot be surprised if some of us think that one constitutional bird in the hand is worth an infinite number in the new Labour bush, and that the Bill will be improved by including a solid constitutional innovation, on top of the more idiosyncratic Weatherill amendment. I had no difficulty in voting for the Weatherill amendment, pragmatism being the heart of Conservatism, but I was a little surprised—Conservatism not being the Prime Minister's present flavour of the month—that the Government also put pragmatism first. We live in strange times.
I have already sketched out the skeleton of a first-class political thriller based on the Weatherill amendment, involving a Genghis Khan-like figure, an Ian Fleming villain in the lonely places of Mongolia, seeking to use the provisions of the amendment, particularly its by-election principle, to avenge the passing of the hereditary principle.
The Weatherill amendment's very bizarreness made it a highly traditional increment to the British constitution, but amendment No. 2 would add something solid to the constitution and would not need bizarreness to recommend it.

Dr. George Turner: We should not pass the evening without noting the hypocrisy of Opposition Members, who, for 18 years, managed to hide their principled objection to patronage, and supported a system under which they already held a Conservative majority of 3:1 over other parties. Under the system of patronage that they supported, their Prime Minister even vetoed proposals from other political parties. It ill suits the Opposition tonight suddenly to discover that, because there has been a change in political control, what they supported in the past is urgently in need of repair.

Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman says that Conservative Prime Ministers vetoed nominations from leaders of other political parties. That may be true; I do not know. I should be grateful if he could provide an example.

Dr. Turner: Specifically, no. It was a feature of the past 18 years that the patronage of the Prime Minister was complete in that respect. Conservative Members did not complain then. There is a goodly element of hypocrisy in the case that they bring tonight.
After 365 life peers were appointed, of whom 173 were Tories, even though they had an overwhelming majority in the other House, it ill becomes the Opposition to


complain when the present Prime Minister has appointed only marginally more than 50 per cent. That does not reflect the proportions of elected representation in the House. The amendment is inadequate for the purpose and, if the House is genuinely to address how to prevent patronage from having in future the importance that it had in the past, we must return to that issue.
I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is important that we now deliver on our commitment to ensuring that there is a brief period between phases 1 and 2 of the reform of the House of Lords. We should consider what power the commission should have after we have made up our minds about what not only the function of the House of Lords, but its make-up, should be.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is developing a most extraordinary theme. Would he care to explain how putting the commission in statutory form impedes moving on to the next stage of the reform of the other place?

Dr. Turner: The point has already been made that what we are being asked to add in by statute addresses but a tiny portion of the problem. We do not know what will be the constitution of the new House that we want to establish in the second phase; nor do we know what its functions and role will be. When we know the purpose of the new House and from what sections of society its Members come, we shall know what form of scrutiny the commission will need to undertake.
Many different views are held by hon. Members about the make-up of the future House. When we have decided that, and what its functions will be, we must return to the issue of scrutiny to ensure that we get rid of the ills of patronage.

Mr. Hogg: The majority of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have rallied round one proposition: the Minister's speech disappointed. It did so for this reason. He said that the Prime Minister wants to divest himself of patronage and wants to set up an independent commission. He said quite a bit about what the independent commission will be like, although that is not set out in any formal documents, and, as it happens, his remarks were almost identical to the provisions of the Lords amendment. Therefore the House is entitled to say, "If that is the case, why not put it in the Bill?" The arguments advanced by him are simply spurious. He does not want to include such a provision because he knows that, were he to do so, his ability to change his mind and the Government's ability to handle patronage would be diminished. They want to retain flexibility.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall proceed a little more.
I do not want the Government to retain flexibility because I want to stop Governments having great powers of patronage—for that matter, not only Governments, but all parties. The objection of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) to the Lords amendment is wholly right. The genuine criticism is that it does not go far enough. As he said quite correctly, it

touches only on the Cross Benchers, which is a pity. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke): it is better to have what we have than to have nothing at all, but it would be better by far if the restriction on the power of patronage extended to the party appointments as well.
I say that for two reasons, and one is that I want the power of the other place to be enhanced, so that it will constitute a much more effective brake on the activities that take place in this Chamber. I do not believe that we can enhance the authority of the other place until it has greater legitimacy, and that is why I agreed so strongly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he spoke of an elected Chamber. I believe in that, and always have. Until we can secure it, however, we must underpin legitimacy in a different way—and one way to do it is by removing the smell of patronage from the process. I believe in democracy.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) sniggers. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Whip."] I know that, and it brings me to my second point. The other reason why I am against patronage is that it demeans the House of Commons. We all know—I have been here for 20 years, and know far too well—the ways in which the party machine controls this House, not just my party but, more particularly, the Government party. One of the ways in which it does that is by exercising its power of patronage. I want to take that power away from the party machine, so that we can increase the independence of hon. Members. I also believe that the power of patronage is demeaning to public life. There is a deeply rooted belief, which I consider to be justified, that people can secure preferment in terms of membership of the other place in return for services rendered to the Government of the day.
For all those reasons, I support the Lords amendment. It does not go far enough, but it represents a small step forward, and on that basis, we should welcome it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is an honour to follow my neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who, as the elder son of a most distinguished peer, speaks with great knowledge of these matters.
Debates on this subject are always characterised by arguments between what I term the radicals and the ministerialists—or the proto-ministerialists. Radicals can be found on both sides of the House, and, in these debates, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he argues for an elected House. I fear, however, that Chesterfield is the home of lost causes, in the context of this issue and, indeed, others.
It is sad that, on this historic day on which 800 years of history are coming to an end, we should debate one narrow little amendment that could only improve the Bill, and that even that fig leaf should be rejected by the Government. On a day when we are ending 800 years of history, we should create something of which we can be proud: an elected Chamber, a democratic body. Instead, we are debating whether the Government are prepared to include in the Bill provision for a commission to appoint a few Cross-Bench peers—and the Government are rejecting even that on the grounds that it goes too far and is too democratic, on this historic day.
What is so sad is that the establishment—new Labour is the new establishment—will be happy. Everyone is happy. The hereditaries, who have been treated appallingly, have got something out of this. I support the retention of a small number. There should be more—we should have asked for more—but at least some will remain to retain some kind of democratic credibility in the other place. [Interruption.] After next week, they will be the only people in the other place who will have been elected by anyone. At least there will be a few there, and they are happy.
The political parties are also happy, because they preserve their right to appoint, through patronage, their own people. I suppose that the Cross Benchers will be happy, whether or not there is an appointments commission. One very large body of people will not be happy: the public. Only the public are excluded. We are talking about half the British Parliament. After this week, a quarter of it will have been appointed by this Prime Minister. If we were talking about Latvia or Estonia, people would consider it an extraordinary state of affairs, but we are talking about the mother of Parliaments. The Government will continue to appoint three Members a week, until half the membership is appointed by the current Prime Minister. The appointments commission is no more than a fig leaf.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the House of Lords Bill, the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Business of the House, and consideration of any Messages from the Lords relating to the House of Lords Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

10 pm

Mr. Leigh: At least the amendment would have been something. At least the Prime Minister, or the political party leaders could not have got their sticky fingers on one part of our Parliament—just one small part. We asked for one small thing and even that has been rejected.
What arguments have been advanced today? It has been argued that the amendment may be technically flawed, or that it is not appropriate to put Privy Councillors in an amendment. That is nonsense. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that at least some Labour Members will have the decency to vote for what is a small amendment.

Mr. Tyrie: In contrast to the previous debate, Conservative Members all agree that we want to keep the Lords amendment. That is also my view, but not because I think that an appointments commission is a tremendously good idea. I would prefer legislators to be chosen by election. It is extraordinary that, in this day and age, as we approach the 21st century, they should be chosen in any other way. Therefore, the commission is not so much second best; it is third best.
The commission is, I suppose, a constraint of sorts on prime ministerial patronage and we do need some constraints on such patronage. The Prime Minister has appointed more life peers per annum than any other since life peers were introduced.
The Minister said earlier that I had got my facts wrong, but I have gone to the Library to check them. They are right. It is also true that the Labour Government have appointed more Labour peers as a proportion of the total number than any Government have ever appointed from their own side. Packing is taking place on a huge scale, so we need something to restrain it.
What is more, patronage will be much more important in the interim House than it is now because there will be far more life peers as a proportion of the total and also means that the House will be smaller. Therefore, any addition to the House is disproportionately more important.
The proposals were set out not just in the Government's own White Paper, but in detail by Baroness Jay in Committee. The drafters of the amendment have clearly gone into that detail. They have looked at what she said and ensured that, as far as possible, the amendment conformed to what the Government want. The Government will vote down their own amendment tonight. It is extraordinary.
Why have the Government decided to turn the amendment down tonight? I cannot think, but we have been given a few reasons. I shall go through a few of them. First, the Minister said—he can correct me if I am wrong—that there is no need for an appointments commission because it is only an interim House; it will be gone in a few minutes, so we do not have to worry about it much. That seems to contradict all the other arguments about the Weatherill amendment, which could last for some considerable time, as several hon. Members have acknowledged. I fear that it may last for a very long time indeed, as the last interim House did: it was introduced in 1911 and we have only just started to reform it.
That may have been the Minister's argument—that the commission would deal only with a temporary House—but Baroness Jay gave exactly the opposite reason when she discussed the measure in the other place. She said that we must get it in quickly and promised that she would do so to deal with the new year's honours list; clearly, that will not now happen.
Baroness Jay made her promise in June and we have had no action since. The only action taken seems to have a been a memo to the Treasury saying, "We need a few bob to start work on the commission, so if we want to spend any money please could we have some?" That would take only 48 hours. I am sure that the Chancellor has ticked it off, so that is no reason for not agreeing to the amendment.
The Minister's second argument was that work on establishing the commission would be impeded simply because the other place has put a proposal on the commission into a Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, such an argument could only imply that the Government are planning to establish a different commission from the one proposed in their White Paper, and that Ministers are now halfway down the road and do not want to allow the provision into the Bill.
It is extraordinary to suggest that, every time an amendment on a key issue is tabled in the other place, Government planning should grind to a halt until that amendment has been dealt with. That is not an argument.
The Minister's third argument was that Privy Councillors are entirely unsuitable to serve on the commission. Such a proposition is barely worth debating. The Minister could alter the provision by tabling a small amendment to widen or narrow the list to include those whom hon. Members on both sides of the House think should serve.
Finally, the Minister argued that we could do without a statutory body. That argument gave away much of the truth. If the commission is not statutory, the Prime Minister will be able to change its terms and structure. Consequently, we should have no confidence that there will be an open and transparent system to appoint legislators.
The Minister gave those four reasons for not accepting the amendment, and they were barely worth even articulating. I hope that we shall not hear the arguments again, and that he has kept something up his sleeve to encourage us to think differently.

Mr. Bercow: Do not hold your breath.

Mr. Tyrie: I fear that we shall hear virtually no argument from the Minister, and I certainly shall not hold my breath.
I should be very interested to see whether the Minister has decided that he is prepared after all to concede the matter. If he is not, I should be grateful to hear some better reasons for not doing so other than those that he has given us so far.

Mr. Grieve: This has been a fascinating debate, and perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the lot is that, in presenting the Government's arguments, the Minister has been entirely unsupported by any intervention of substance by a Labour Member.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grieve: I shall in a moment.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Government's intention today, once the Weatherill amendment had been debated, was that the appointments issue—which is critical to the future of the House of Lords, and to the future of freedom and democracy in the United Kingdom—should simply be wafted away with a wave of the hand.
I listened to the Minister's speech, and—it is customary to say this, and I join in saying it—I am completely satisfied about his own integrity and the assurances that he gave the House on the Government's good intentions. However, if the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) demonstrated the quality of the mainstream Labour party's input into the future of accountability and ending patronage, the House has something to fear from the Government.
In a series of interventions by Opposition Members—by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—what has shone through is that, regardless of how we view the ideal solution for the House of Lords, we are all deeply anxious about the matter of patronage, and that the future House, whether elected or appointed, should be free of patronage.

Mr. Bermingham: It would have been so much more pleasant if the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) had given way earlier. My point is very simple: we are waiting for Wakeham. Once the Wakeham commission reports, we shall know where we are going. It is far too early for Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Grieve: With respect, that intervention worries me rather a lot too. One of the central problems in all this is that we were invited to go through a temporary stage and were offered some permanent stage at a later date. However, the temporary stage is so flawed by the absence of safeguards that should be present—in particular, the appointment of members to the upper House—that it gives us real cause for concern.
We can go on waiting for Wakeham for a long time. When it comes, the safeguards will not be in place, so if the Government decide never to implement a second stage, as many of us strongly fear, these safeguards will never come into operation, or if they do, because they will not be in a statutory form, the Government will have every opportunity if they so wish to remove them with impunity and without so much as a reference to the House.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating arguments, but a couple of points merit going over. There were three powerful interventions from Labour Members who, as I understood it, shared the Opposition's disquiet in this matter—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and, although he may correct me, I also detected a considerable amount of anxiety in the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman).
This solution may be imperfect. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central correctly identified all the other areas where it might be desirable for an appointments commission to rule, not merely on the appointment of Cross-Bench peers but of all future peers if it is to be an appointed Chamber, whether it be temporary or—as we all fear—permanent. Which is the better—that we should not signal tonight at least an appreciation of what members of the House of Lords have tried to do or that we should simply say that we will wait on assurances from the Government for some future date?
It is a little difficult to criticise members of the other place for what one might describe as the conservative approach that they adopted in tabling the amendment, when all that they sought to do was to mirror the assurances that the Government had given. Had they gone much further, they would have been open to all sorts of criticism. Therefore, they were greatly to be commended


for the fact that they chose only to take a tentative step. However, if it is only a tentative step, it does not make it negligible. If we go ahead and put down a proper sign that that is the direction in which we ought to be going, it will be difficult subsequently for any Government to gainsay it. To await the assurances of the Minister in this matter appears a counterproductive step and one that risks the danger that the Government will say that it can all be dismissed because there was not real concern in the House about the matter.
I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues, who have given the matter a lot of careful thought and who joined a debate on the nature of the second Chamber that we all seek earlier this year, to reflect carefully whether the amendment tabled is not sufficiently valid that it ought to command support, even if it does not go as far as they would wish to ensure that all appointments to the second Chamber are in the hands at least of an independent commission, not of the Prime Minister alone.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde expressed concern about the amendment in so far as it refers to Northern Ireland. I appreciate that concern, but in truth there is nothing in it that prevents the appointment of peers who come from Northern Ireland, if the Prime Minister so wishes. Of course, it might be more desirable that that, too, should be in the hands of an appointments commission. They will not necessarily be Cross Benchers, but, in itself, there is nothing to prevent that in the amendment and the hon. Gentleman should not be deterred from following his conscience, if that is what is troubling him in this matter, on that single issue.
Finally, it has been said that this is all temporary and that we should not spend so much time on measures that are only temporary. This House has spent hours on the Bill—a measure that we are told is to be temporary. If the Government had been willing to go to the trouble of framing some sensible amendments to the Lords amendment, it would have taken very little more time.
The Government's position is untenable. They indulge in pious hand-wringing about the good intentions of the House of Lords, but they refuse to do anything. It is for those of us who believe in accountability and reducing the powers of patronage to ensure that our message is brought home to the Government this evening.

Mr. Tipping: I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. I am conscious that I need to make rapid progress.
It has been said that this is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the matter, but it was discussed at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) argued strongly with a Scottish voice, as ever. I am conscious of the points that he made and we shall ensure that they are taken forward.
Some Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), have argued that our proposals do not go far enough. They have radical views on the second stage. They were right to point out that the amendment is about only the Cross Benchers.
Several hon. Members have asked me what the Government's plans are. They are set out at some length in chapter six of the White Paper on reform of the House

of Lords. I ask hon. Members to look at that. Some have argued that the amendment is not very different from the Government's plans. They are right. The two are very similar.
That brings me to the key issue: why is there no such measure in the Bill? The answer is very straightforward. We want to go down a tried and tested route—one that has been set by Nolan and Neill and that we know can and will work. We are also conscious that the interim House will be a transitional and temporary measure. We do not want to give the impression that the interim stage will be very long.
Several hon. Members have asked us to make progress. We are determined to do so and we are happy to be judged on our record.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 133.

Division No.319]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caplin, Ivor


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Alexander, Douglas
Chaytor, David


Allan, Richard
Chidgey, David


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beard, Nigel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cotter, Brian


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Edwards, Huw



Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fearn, Ronnie






Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keetch, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David


Follett, Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fyfe, Maria
Laxton, Bob


Gapes, Mike
Lepper, David


Gardiner, Barry
Leslie, Christopher


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Levitt, Tom


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Godman, Dr Norman A
Linton, Martin


Godsiff, Roger
Livsey, Richard


Goggins, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lock, David


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Gunnell, John
McDonnell, John


Hain, Peter
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hanson, David
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
MacShane, Denis


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moore, Michael


Hurst, Alan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Olner, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Neill, Martin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Organ, Mrs Diana





Osborne, Ms Sandra
Soley, Clive


Palmer, Dr Nick
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pearson, Ian
Spellar, John


Pendry, Tom
Squire, Ms Rachel


Perham, Ms Linda
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pickthall, Colin
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pollard, Kerry
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pond, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Rammell, Bill
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rendel, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Roy, Frank
Tynan, Bill


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
White, Brian


Sanders, Adrian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wills, Michael


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wilson, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony



Wray, James


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Baldry, Tony



Beggs, Roy
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Collins, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Brady, Graham
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Browning, Mrs Angela



Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Donaldson, Jeffrey






Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gale, Roger
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Garnier, Edward
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gill, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gray, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Shepherd, Richard


Greenway, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Swayne, Desmond


Horam, John
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Willis, Phil


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wilshire, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Woodward, Shaun


Malins, Humfrey
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mates, Michael



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


May, Mrs Theresa
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 4, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—Voting rights of life peers: extension of duration of Parliament—
 . In respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a Bill providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond five years, no peer appointed to the House of Lords under the Life Peerages Act 1958 during the course of that Parliament shall be entitled to vote on such proceedings.

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is unnecessary, nasty and will not achieve its objective. It is a mean little amendment that purports to provide an additional safeguard—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is a general buzz of conversation. The House must listen to the Minister.

Mr. Tipping: The amendment purports to provide an additional safeguard against an attempt to extend the life of Parliament. Under the Parliament Act 1911, the House of Lords retains an absolute veto on any legislation to achieve such an effect. The Government made it clear in the White Paper and elsewhere that we think that that veto should be retained. We recognise the importance of that constitutional safeguard and have no intention of undermining it. We made it clear that it should be retained not only in the transitional House, but in the fully reformed House.
The amendment suggests that some Members of the House of Lords should not be allowed to vote on a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament, irrespective of their party, the reason for their nomination as life peers, or the quality of their contribution to debates. The only criterion to be applied is the date of their patent. Some Members of the House of Lords are always potentially to be considered second class and untrustworthy, at least until they survive a general election, when they miraculously become first class and honourable.
When this amendment was debated in the House of Lords, the Conservatives totally failed to explain why they thought that protection against the power of a Government determined to extend their life should be needed now. They tried only two justifications for their approach. First—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who do not want to hear the Minister leave the Chamber and continue their conversations outside?

Mr. Tipping: First, the Conservatives argued that the hereditary peers are uniquely independent of the blandishments of party and the siren calls of short-term expediency. Secondly, they argued that the balance of numbers in the House now means that it is much easier for the Government of the day to pack the House. Neither proposition is true and both are deeply insulting to life peers, especially to those from this party.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all take note of your exhortations, but would not our proceedings be greatly assisted if the Minister addressed the House without muttering into his notes so that his speech is inaudible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House would be better able to hear the Minister if we had fewer contributions from a sedentary position, including those from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tipping: It is no easier now for any party to achieve a majority in the House of Lords than it has been for the Conservative party—indeed, it is rather less so. Life peers are just as honourable, just as independent in


their views and have just as great a sense of public service as hereditary peers. What is being suggested is an insult to the integrity of life peers and of those who might in the future be honoured with life peerages.
The amendment would not even achieve its desired effect. To a Government really determined on such a course, there are several ways round even this obstacle. For example, a Government reasonably confident of their position could pack the House first, call a general election and then repeal the Septennial Act. There is a strange paradox—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tipping: No.
The proposal in the amendment would be effective only in the context of a rational, law-abiding Government, and in that context, it is quite unnecessary.
I urge that this amendment be rejected.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not know about insults, but I think that that non-argument was an insult to this House. This is a very simple amendment to which I shall address very few words, and I will make sure that they are audible. It seeks to prevent life peers appointed in the course of a Parliament from voting in any proceedings that provide for the extension of the life of the Parliament beyond five years. That is an extremely simple proposition to which no democratic Member of this House ought to have any objection.
We heard earlier that when the House of Lords meets next week, on 17 November, a quarter of its members will have been appointed in the past two and a half years by the current Prime Minister—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Not enough.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That remark makes my case that the House of Lords could be packed and, at the Government's behest, vote to prolong the life of Parliament.
There is a precedent for the amendment being made. The Parliament Acts that are currently in force specifically and deliberately leave untouched the absolute power of the House of Lords to reject any Bill to extend the life of Parliament.
I cast no aspersions on anyone present this evening; nor do I doubt for half a second the integrity of the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I respect. I do not even doubt what the Prime Minister might do. All I say is that the amendment is not one that any democratically elected Government need fear. It is a simple and emphatic statement that ought to command the universal respect and support of this House.
Many dictatorships have begun with elected Governments, and we do not want one ever to be inflicted on this country. I do not suggest that there is one currently in prospect, but we are debating an upper House with an indeterminate life span. All we want is to write in a simple safeguard, which takes nothing away from the Government's proposals, but merely reaffirms something

that every democratically elected Government ought to reaffirm. I urge the House to come to a quick decision and to vote emphatically in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Forth: The amendment deals with an important matter, because it touches on nothing less than the role of the upper House as a safeguard of our constitution. Few matters can be more important than that and anyone who has given the amendment even the most cursory consideration will fully understand its import.
Despite that, the debate was given only the most superficial introduction by the Minister. I do not know whether he was ashamed of his argument, whether he did not fully understand his argument, or whether he was patronising the House in a manner with which we have become all too familiar. Whatever the reason, we have been given little to work on, so we shall have to use our imagination when trying to understand the issues. Therefore, the process might take a little longer than it might have taken had the Minister given us a proper explanation. A little detailed consideration will be required as a result of the Minister being unhelpful to the House, but I shall attempt to set the scene as best I can, so that the debate can run its proper course.
We are considering how the upper House is properly to fulfil its important role of safeguarding the constitution against any possibility of an extension to the term of a Parliament. Throughout history, that issue has arisen from time to time, often in extremely dramatic circumstances. Although it has not arisen in the recent past, the size of the current Government's majority in the House of Commons gives cause for anxiety about the possibility of an attempt being made to extend Parliament's term.
The irony is that the size of the Government's majority in this place brings the issue to the surface. We are entitled to be somewhat suspicious of the possible consequences. In a bicameral system, if one House comprises an overwhelming number of Members from the same party, we will rely more on the other House—in this case, the upper House—to provide vital safeguards against prolonging the life of a Parliament.
That is the background to this issue, and I turn to the details of the amendment. Paradoxically, the Minister gave us a clue—I do not think he intended to do so—when he used the phrase "pack the House". He obviously thinks that a future Government or Prime Minister could seek to— I use the Minister's words—pack the upper House with Members who would then influence votes in that place. If that is on the Minister's mind, it should certainly be on hon. Members' minds as we consider this amendment.
I may have come to this debate innocent of such matters; it may be that that point did not occur to me. However, even a cursory hearing of the Minister's comments would have alerted me to the fact that he thinks that the House of Lords could be packed by this or a future Prime Minister. That is why we must consider this amendment very seriously.
I thought it rather odd when the Minister went on to say that it would be an insult to life peers—he used those words—if we agreed to the amendment. A common theme has run through the debates tonight that I will characterise as, "Trust me, I'm from the Government; leave it all to me and don't worry". That is what the Minister implied in the previous debate when he resisted an attempt to put


what amounted to his own proposals into the Bill to act as a perfectly natural, simple safeguard. When dealing with constitutional matters, what could be more natural than having on the face of legislation as important as this details of the mechanisms upon which we shall rely to settle future arrangements? That is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Yet in the previous debate, the Minister tried to persuade us that we need not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to dwell on the previous debate because we have moved on.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to set the scene before exploring the details of my argument.
The Minister's comments in opening this debate were a reverberation of his previous remarks. He said that we do not need the natural safeguards and reassurances proposed by the amendment. He urged hon. Members to trust him, the Government and the Prime Minister because they would not dream of doing the sorts of things that the Minister himself suggested—that is, packing the upper House. This amendment seeks to guard against that eventuality.
In a sense, it is a simple proposition. We have reached a crucial stage in our consideration of this Bill, which introduces important constitutional arrangements. Those arrangements are even more significant because we have no idea how long the so-called temporary measures will be in place. If the Minister had given us a time scale or a point of reference, that might have provided the sort of reassurance that we seek. However, the absence of any commitments from the Government as to how long the temporary arrangements will last strengthens the argument that the Bill should include the reassurances that this amendment would provide. That argument applied beforehand, and it is even more applicable now.
10.45 pm
The Minister might even now be regretting the fact that he and the Leader of the House have persistently failed to give us any guidance, comfort or reassurance about whether the so-called temporary arrangement may be very brief. Instead, we have been led to believe that it could last for some considerable time. There is talk of the commission, which is at present considering the matter, and joint Committees of the House, and intriguing and tantalising references to the need for consensus and widespread agreement if we are to move forward. It seems to me that the possibilities for resolving the matter in the foreseeable future will be far fewer if the Government are seeking consensus or widespread agreement.
When one puts together all the factors, including the fact that we have been given no time scale and that the Government say that they are seeking a consensual approach to the next stage, that suggests that the time frame is likely to be much longer than we would have otherwise expected. That must surely strengthen the argument for the amendment.
I am afraid that I am not, on this occasion, prepared simply to trust the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister. I believe that these matters transcend the simple act of faith that is being asked of us. It is our duty to provide the people of this country with a degree of

reassurance and comfort and a safeguard of the kind that the amendment would give them, rather than expect them naively to trust the Government. I do not feel able to trust the Government, and I cannot do so on behalf of anyone else. I fear that unless the Minister is prepared, at the end of the debate, to give us much more information and reassurance, we must insist that the amendment is adhered to. We support it very strongly, and we send that strong message to the Government.

Mr. Fallon: Of the three debates that we have had today, this is the most important. It is, therefore, all the more disgraceful that the Minister put up no serious argument against the amendment. An argument was made against it in another place to the effect that it would not bite on section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911. That argument is wrong. The amendment would address a central weakness of that section, and I shall explain why.
It is in that Act that the Lords retain their absolute power of veto over any proposal to extend the life of a Parliament. That is sometimes referred to as their reserve power. Indeed, it is probably on everybody's wish list of residual, nuclear powers for the reformed upper House. However, it is important to understand—my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) put this point exactly—that the power to veto any attempt to extend the life of a Parliament is not an exception to the 1911 Act, but it is the rest of that Act that is itself the exception.
In the rest of the Act, the House of Lords delegates to this House its normal right to assent to public Bills. It does so in the particular prescribed circumstances in which the Parliament Acts are applied to insist on legislation, first within two years, and then within one year. However, it was always a gap in the 1911 Act that the reserve power was restricted only to the life of a Parliament and not to the composition of a Parliament. That is what the amendment seeks to redress.
There is a reason for that gap in the 1911 Act, which is that the Act was always designed to be temporary. The composition of Parliament was then subject to a separate report, and it was always envisaged that the 1911 Act would be rapidly replaced, so it did not occur to the draftsmen to state in the 1911 Act, or the 1949 Act, that any Bill affecting the composition as well as the duration of Parliament should also be exempted from the operation of the Act. The amendment would restore that protection. I assume that, when the Government finally make their stage 2 proposals, they will include a measure such that both Houses would in future have to assent to any Bill that affected Parliament itself; otherwise, we should reform the second House, but retain the right for this place to change it all again if we did not like it. It must be right to address that lacuna in the 1911 Act.
More than 20 years ago, when the Home committee examined these matters, it gave some thought to entrenchment. I was delighted to see that the amendment was moved in the other place by Lord Mancroft, whose father was a distinguished vice-chairman of the Home committee and played his part in its deliberations. Whatever criticism we might make of the amendment, we cannot claim that it is meaningless. It prevents the House of Lords from being packed for a purpose, and that purpose would be to extend the duration of Parliament. The amendment insists that new life peers cannot vote until a new election has taken place
In the other place, two arguments were made against the amendment by Lord Williams of Mostyn who, amazingly, is now the Attorney-General. He put two of the weakest arguments that I have ever heard. First, he said that the amendment could not of itself amend the 1911 Act. However, if it forms part of this Bill, there is a strong argument for including it in the major Bill that is to follow this one. We would thus be able to restore the gap in the 1911 Act.
Secondly, he said that the Government could still pack the House just before an election. That concedes the danger that we are trying to guard against. The Government are already considering circumstances in which a House could be packed. However, at least in those circumstances, there would be an election.
The Minister's rather garbled defence of his case rests on trust. He says, "We would not do it", and that the House can trust this Government and this Prime Minister not to monkey about with our constitution. For two and a half years, our constitution has been vandalised; the powers of this House have been given away to unelected bodies in Europe and to a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Later tonight, perhaps we shall see two thirds of one of our Houses of Parliament expelled, but the Government ask us to trust them on the constitution. If the amendment were accepted, we would strengthen the House of Lords and we put down a marker for the final reform to which the Government are committed.

Sir Peter Emery: I had no intention of speaking in these debates until I heard the unbelievably weak case put by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Why oppose the measure? If the Government want to carry out reform and they want to be trusted, why not put the measure into law?
I apologise to Members of the other place because we may be preventing them from dealing with the Bill when they had hoped to do so. However, the matter is one of great importance and they must realise that. They voted for the measure so we have a right to ensure that trust is best put in the law. If matters are part of legislation, they cannot be thrown away and there is no need to trust anybody—it would be the law. I need to hear better arguments than I have read in the reports of the House of Lords proceedings, or have heard from Members on the Treasury Bench. Why are Labour Members not willing to table measures in which they believe? If they believe that the Government should not be able to prolong their own life, they must surely have nothing against the amendment. It is only when one doubts or does not believe that what is being said is absolute that one can be against the amendment. We are asking that the provision be included in the Bill. I believe that their lordships would want us to do exactly that, however long we must debate the point.

Mr. Robathan: I support the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches, but in doing so invoke the spirit of history. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that the reason why we have Acts that determine how long a Parliament should run dates backs to the mid-17th century and the

Long Parliament. Since then, the length of a Parliament and whether a discredited Government could extend their time in office have been critical.
I tried to intervene on the Minister, but, unfortunately, his nose was so deeply buried in his speech that he would not accept any interventions. I ask him in his brief winding-up speech—I am sure that it will be brief—to answer this question: are there any circumstances in which he would support an extension of a Parliament? If there are no such circumstances, why is he opposing the amendment? The amendment is solely to stop the upper House being packed. I hope that he will withdraw his opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: When one sees a Minister put his nose in his notes, gabble his speech and ignore any interventions, one knows that he probably has a pretty weak argument and is somewhat ashamed of it. It was presented to us as though it was somehow an impertinence that we should be questioning the Government's good intentions. The provision is the most important democratic safeguard that our Parliament will have. It is extremely important that we spend time not only debating the point but making it clear to the Government and people outside the House.
The Minister's arguments turned on the role of the hereditary peers in preventing the Government from extending their term in office beyond that of a Parliament. Those arguments are largely irrelevant. This House has just agreed the Weatherill amendment to leave only 92 hereditary peers. The vast majority of peers with whom we shall entrust the task will be life peers, so the only arguments in the Minister's speech were bogus.
The Minister asked us to believe that any rational, law-abiding Government would in no way wish to extend their own life by packing the House of Lords. At what point does a rational, law-abiding Government become a criminal, irrational Government? There is a continuum between those judgments. I believe that it is thoroughly irrational to ban beef on the bone, but the governing party thinks that such a policy is rational. I believe that bombing Kosovo was of highly dubious legality, as do a number of Labour Members. So one man's rational and law-abiding Government is another man's irrational and possibly criminal Government.
Amazingly, as a result, the only institution that is left to defend democracy against a Government who wish to sustain themselves in office by such means is the sovereign—what an extraordinary position. We are debating a Bill to remove the main hereditary element from our constitution, but managing at the same time to leave the defence of democracy in the only remaining hereditary part of it. That is the absurdity of the Government's position.

11 pm

Mr. Grieve: If anything characterises the extraordinary approach that the Government have taken to the whole Bill, it is the way in which they have reacted to Lords amendment No. 4. 1 tell the Minister, who got so worked up in presenting, at gabbling speed, the Government's position, that I believe that if the proposal had been suggested as an amendment to the Parliament Act 1949, without there being any reform of the House of Lords, it


would have commended itself to the House, at least for serious consideration. Anything that strengthens our liberties, anything that ensures that this country could not, under certain circumstances, sink into dictatorship, is worth that consideration. I am amazed by the reception that it has received from the Minister and the complete absence of comment on it by Labour Members.
The amendment is perfectly straightforward and sensible. It must be judged against a situation, which I appreciate that the Minister will say is justified, in which the Government have been creating peers on an unprecedented scale. With that sort of instability introduced into our system, it is doubly necessary that we should consider such an amendment.
In the debate in the other place, the Baroness Park, not normally noted for her partisanship, had this to say on the matter:
I greatly respect many of my friends on the Opposition Benches. I feel sure that if they think about it they will accept that we are thinking about the future of the country. It is all very well saying that the people would rebel. If there is one thing about the British, it is that they never notice anything that is happening to them until it has happened. That is why we always win wars at the last moment. We cannot afford to put this particular liberty at risk."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1999; Vol. 603, c. 296.]
I hope that the Minister, in closing the debate, will rise to the occasion as he has signally failed to do so far. The amendment is clear cut and sensible. It would stand the test even if the Bill were not being passed. With the changes that are being brought about, it is doubly necessary.

Mr. Tipping: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This important debate has focused on the historic safeguards that the House of Lords has given us for many years. This is an important and historic day. Many of our friends and colleagues in the upper House will be leaving us shortly. From the Treasury Bench, I want to thank them for their years of service. I wish them well for the future. I want it to be clear to them that my colleagues and friends on the Labour Benches acknowledge the years of service that they have been given. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I will not tolerate this noise. The Minister is addressing the House.

Mr. Tipping: I am addressing those colleagues and friends in the House of Lords who have given us years of service. I place on record our thanks to them and wish them well. I wish the new life peers who will now dominate the upper House the same rights, the same traditions and the same responsibilities. Undoubtedly, the new life peers will continue to safeguard our constitution, and the amendment is unnecessary. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am about to put the Question. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) should not be shouting across the Floor.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 130.

Division No. 320]
[11.4 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cotter, Brian


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allan, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ballard, Jackie
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Bayley, Hugh
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beard, Nigel
Denham, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dismore, Andrew


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Dobbin, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bermingham, Gerald
Edwards, Huw


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Betts, Clive
Fearn, Ronnie


Blackman, Liz
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caplin, Ivor
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chidgey, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate






Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moore, Michael


Hurst, Alan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Olner, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Neill, Martin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keetch, Paul
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pollard, Kerry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pond, Chris


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pope, Greg


Laxton, Bob
Pound, Stephen


Lepper, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Levitt, Tom
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Primarolo, Dawn


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Prosser, Gwyn


Linton, Martin
Purchase, Ken


Livsey, Richard
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lock, David
Rammell, Bill


Love, Andrew
Rapson, Syd


McAvoy, Thomas
Raynsford, Nick


McCabe, Steve
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rendel, David


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McDonnell, John
Rooker, Jeff


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McIsaac, Shona
Rowlands, Ted


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Roy, Frank


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWalter, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


Marion, Mrs Alice
Salter, Martin


Mallaber, Judy
Sanders, Adrian


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)





Singh, Marsha
Todd, Mark


Skinner, Dennis
Touhig, Don


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tynan, Bill


Snape, Peter
Vis, Dr Rudi


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stunell, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wray, James


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Tony McNulty.




NOES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Flight, Howard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bercow, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fraser, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brady, Graham
Gray, James


Brazier, Julian
Green, Damian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grieve, Dominic


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cash, William
Hammond, Philip


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Horam, John



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Collins, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cran, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lansley, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Loughton, Tim


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew






Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maples, John
Streeter, Gary


Mates, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Syms, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Paterson, Owen
Walter, Robert


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Prior, David
Wells, Bowen


Randall, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Redwood, Rt Hon John
whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence
Wilkinson, John


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


St Aubyn, Nick
Woodward, Shaun


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Nicholas
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 5 to 12 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; that Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mrs. Anne McGuire be members of the Committee; that Mrs. Margaret Beckett be the Chairman of the Committee; that three be the quorum of the Committee; and that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Forth: This is a particularly important Committee, at this of all times. The matters that we have been considering this evening are of the greatest historical and constitutional importance. We should therefore pay particular attention to the motion, in a number of respects.
The first question that I raise is whether it is appropriate for the Committee to meet immediately. I should have thought that it would be more productive if there were a period of reflection between the completion of debate and the Committee's establishment. Many complicated matters have been dealt with during the debate. It might add to the quality of the Committee's reflection and deliberations were there to be a delay, perhaps until tomorrow, before it sat to reflect on that debate.

Mr. Swayne: Given that the Committee is specifically charged with drawing up reasons to be given to their

lordships, and that no reasons were evident at all from Labour Members, it clearly needs plenty of time to dwell on the matter.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has touched on a relevant matter. To the extent to which the Minister has failed to give adequate arguments to the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should speak strictly to the motion. If there is any deviation from the motion, I will bring him, and anyone who intervenes, to order.

Mr. Forth: I have no doubt of that at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed us in a useful direction. He pointed out the relationship between the responsibilities of the Reasons Committee properly to put together the House's reasons to another place for our conclusions on the amendments, and the Minister's failure, which has been oft repeated, to give adequate reasons for the Government's attitude to the amendments; so there is a double responsibility on the Committee.
This would not normally be the case. If the Minister had properly discharged his responsibilities, the Committee would have had much less to do. As it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to revisit the debates that we have had. He should speak to the motion and to nothing else.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful.
That brings me to the membership of the Committee. Looking down the list of members that has been proposed, I find that some of them have, indeed, taken part in the debates this evening. Members who have participated in the debate, understand it, have been here throughout and can express its nuances and ambience to the House of Lords, would be particularly appropriate, but I notice that the list of members includes, by my reckoning, at least two who have not participated in the debate. That must raise a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."' I will not embarrass anyone. I raise the matter because it is relevant. Does the House consider it appropriate for members who have not participated in the debate to be part of the Reasons Committee? Can they fully give the flavour of the debate to another place?

Mr. Bercow: In view of the doubts about the credentials of some of the members of the Reasons Committee, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be reasonable to suggest that the period of reflection for those members should be no less than that which the Government propose between stage 1 and stage 2?

Mr. Forth: I suspect that, if I were to pursue that matter, the Deputy Speaker would deal with me harshly. However, my hon. Friend's intervention brings another thought to mind.
In the light of what I have just said about the Committee's membership, might it not be more appropriate if Hansard were available to the Committee members, so that they might consider our debate and better express the reasons to the other place? If the House


were to agree with me on that proposition, it would lead very naturally to the conclusion that the Committee would do better to convene tomorrow morning, with Hansard available to it, to deal with a long and necessarily complicated debate.
I should like to move on quickly to the matter of the quorum. It was suggested that the Committee's quorum be three. Although that may be appropriate in normal circumstances, I really wonder whether, given the matter's complexity and importance, three is adequate. It would be possible, however theoretically, that the quorum could be composed entirely of Labour Members. The Committee could therefore deliberate with only three Labour Members, but no Opposition Members. Would that be acceptable or appropriate?

Mr. Fallon: If the quorum continues as three, would it not follow that two thirds of it could consist of hon. Members who did not participate in the debate?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. If we pursue the matter to its logical conclusion, it would indeed be possible for the Committee properly to deliberate with the proposed quorum, which could be dominated by hon. Members who had not participated in the debate. I should have to question the validity of such deliberations, and ask whether the House would be satisfied with the type of account that such a Committee could give of our deliberations in another place, given the seriousness of the matters that we have been considering.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the composition of the Committee—which includes not only great men, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), but new hon. Members who have no experience of constitutional matters and are merely placemen working for the Leader of the House—demonstrates Labour Members' contempt for the other place?

Mr. Forth: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that, as I regard the vote and view of all hon. Members as absolutely equal and of equal value. That is not my difference with the Committee's membership—which I explained in a different context—or with the quorum. However, I am worried about the quorum.
Before we approve the Committee, given the constitutional importance and sensitivity of the matters that it will be dealing with, we shall need a much more satisfactory explanation about the quality of its deliberations, and its ability properly to reflect the House's deliberations and conclusions. I should have thought that those were perfectly reasonable subjects of concern.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I shall, but I do want to draw to a conclusion.

Mr. Fallon: I know that my right hon. Friend wants to make progress, as do I, but, in view of the deficiencies of the proposed Committee, I wonder whether he has considered putting forth his own name for the Committee.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is all too kind—and I would be prepared to volunteer. As he will know, I have sat through most of the debate and, in my modest way, participated once or twice. I think that I could make a contribution to the Committee's deliberations, but I shall leave that for others to decide. Nevertheless, the suggestion raises an interesting procedural point.
Given the reservations that I have expressed about the Committee, I wonder whether it is possible for us to amend its timing, composition or quorum—or whether it is a take it or leave it proposition.
If the House expressed its wish in a Division not to establish the Reasons Committee because it agreed with any of my arguments about the timing, the membership or the quorum, we would need guidance as to where we should go from here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will reassure me that we cannot simply be offered an off-the-cuff proposition on a take-it-or-leave-it basis about a Committee as important as this, without any opportunity to amend it.
I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to how the House can effectively express its opinion about the matter and how it might go about altering anything before deciding whether to approve the establishment of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the right hon. Gentleman finished?

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will then put the Question.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I seek guidance about our ability to amend the resolution of the House if we support him in the Division and wish to change the membership of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was taking part in a debate and, in any case, every word that he addresses is to the Chair. At this time of night, I am not here to educate hon. Members. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) whether he wants to vote for or to support the motion that I am about to put to the House.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the No Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 331, Noes 28.

Division No. 321]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darvill, Keith


Alexander, Douglas
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allan, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dismore, Andrew


Atkins, Charlotte
Dobbin, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Donohoe, Brian H


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Efford, Clive


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Berry, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Follett, Barbara


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Borrow, David
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Bradshaw, Ben
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gerrard, Neil


Browne, Desmond
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chaytor, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, Iain
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corston, Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)





Humble, Mrs Joan
Motley, Elliot


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keeble, Ms Sally
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pearson, Ian


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pendry, Tom


Kemp, Fraser
Perham, Ms Linda


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pickthall, Colin


Khabra, Piara S
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pope, Greg


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Powell, Sir Raymond


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Leslie, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Levitt, Tom
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rammell, Bill


Linton, Martin
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Love, Andrew
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCabe, Steve
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sanders, Adrian


MacShane, Denis
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallaber, Judy
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moore, Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George






Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tyler, Paul


Stinchcombe, Paul
Tynan, Bill


Stoate, Dr Howard
Vis, Dr Rudi


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Walley, Ms Joan


Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Stunell, Andrew
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Todd, Mark
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Woolas, Phil


Trickett, Jon
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wray, James


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)




Paterson, Owen


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Robathan, Andrew



Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Fabricant, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Gale, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mr. Crispin Blunt and


Gray, James
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If, tomorrow morning—after Treasury questions and after the Official Report for today is available—the Prime Minister asked to make a statement correcting his statement this afternoon that the married persons allowance would be available to someone retiring after April next year, would it be in order for that statement to be taken before Prorogation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister whether he wishes to make a statement.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Pensioners

Valerie Davey: Pensioners presented me with this petition before the statements in the House yesterday by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security. I am sure that they will have been pleased to learn of the additional benefits that they will receive, but I know that they would still want their request to be given serious consideration.
The petition of the Senior Citizens' Forum for Better Pensions:
Declares that the state pension for senior citizens is not enough to live on with dignity. Pensioners are getting poorer.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Social Security to restore the link between pensions and wages to help us, the pensioners of today, who have gone through two world wars
And the Petitioners remain.
The petition was signed by 150 pensioners in my constituency.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Long Ashton (Green Belt)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Dr. Liam Fox: After a debate as momentous as this evening's, when we ended 800 years of our history with the imposition of a halfway house of yes-men placed by the Prime Minister, a debate on greenbelt land in a small village in Somerset may seem inconsequential. However, it is not only of great importance to people who live in the village but a classic example of what is happening up and down this land, where local residents living in rural communities are battling against often inappropriate developments.
I do not expect hon. Members to know where Long Ashton is, but, for those who are interested, it lies south of Bristol in the north of my constituency, in north Somerset. The village has a treasured mediaeval history and a strong local identity. Although it lies closer to Bristol than any other village in my constituency, it is definitely part of north Somerset.
Woodspring is not a not-in-my-backyard constituency. It has taken more of than its share of development in recent years. The towns of Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead have all taken large expanses of new house building because we recognise that new houses need to be built and that people need to live somewhere. In particular, those who have grown up in local communities need some continuity through the availability of housing in those places. A recent example of how people feel let down is the development in East Portishead, which was supposedly going to take the housing allocation for that part of north Somerset. It is not yet complete, but new large-scale house building developments are proposed without any other local infrastructure being provided.
The development that I am discussing tonight lies south of the Long Ashton road, on a hillside overlooking the Long Ashton bypass. Anyone who has taken that road south of Bristol will know that the village is set on a large expanse of hillside green belt which would disappear under the development. Six previous inquiries have given reasoned argument against building houses on this greenfield site. We believe that the inspector in the most recent inquiry took a cavalier approach to the development. Many believe that we are witnessing the rape of the rural south-west and that developers will not be happy until large parts of the rural south-west are concreted over and an urban conurbation running from the southern border of Bristol to Weston-super-Mare and the sea is created.
Several general questions arise. First, many suspect, in my constituency and well beyond, that the dice are loaded too heavily in favour of the developers. When inquiry after inquiry has found in favour of local residents, it takes only one to find in favour of the developers, and the land is gone for ever. The local residents have to fight on and on and on, but the developers have to be lucky only once. That is not a party political point but something that is felt up and down the country in constituencies represented by hon. Members of all parties. There is a problem of local accountability because the developers seem to have everything stacked in their favour.
There is a second democratic question to be answered. Given that the local Member of Parliament, the district councillor, the district council, the local councillors, teachers, doctors, environmentalists, parents—in fact, everyone involved in the local community—oppose the development, how can an inspector who has no links with the area, no understanding of the area and no share in its values come in after so many inquiries have taken place, adopt the contrary view and suddenly decide that the green land is to disappear for ever? The Minister who is to reply to the debate wrote to me, saying:
I appreciate that this outcome may disappoint you and a number of your constituents, but I can assure you that the decision to grant planning permission was taken only after the most careful consideration of the evidence submitted by the interested parties.
Every single interested party—other than the developers, of course—opposed the development, so the final outcome appears to reflect a strange balance of the interests.
The policies of Governments past and present dictate that no development should take place in the sort of green rural area represented by the site in question. Apart from the obvious destruction of a valuable amenity, the fact that certain specific principles of housing have been ignored causes great concern. Like us, the Government believe that new houses and jobs should be created together. The development in Long Ashton would simply increase commuter traffic to Bristol; there are already long queues out of the village at peak times. There are no alternative routes and more commuters will make matters far worse.
That goes against present Government policy and is to the detriment, not only of the local community, but of the Bristol highways authority, which is desperately trying to reduce traffic entering the city. Brownfield sites in Bristol should be used for residential development, rather than for increasing office premises, because there are already far too many people travelling in and out of Bristol each day. Modern electronic communications mean that there is no need for offices to be located close to each other. In addition, although any development should be designed to maintain, as far as is possible, the traditional characteristics of the local community, the development in question threatens Long Ashton in a way that is utterly inconsistent with that principle.
We have been dealt a second blow: not only has the development that will result in the destruction of a large area of the green land surrounding the village been given the go-ahead, but we have learned that the Long Ashton research station is to be closed. We discovered that, not in the normal way through a statement being made, but via a press release and a letter from Lord Sainsbury dated 5 August. He writes:
As you know, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council…have been reviewing the future development of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, of which the Long Ashton Research Station forms part, and it has reached the conclusion detailed in the enclosed press release.
This involves concentration of research and investment at the Rothamsted site"—
in Hertfordshire—
and phased withdrawal from Long Ashton, with the transfer of some of the staff and work to Rothamsted.


In an example of hand washing that makes Pontius Pilate look like an amateur, Lord Sainsbury adds:
The BBSRC Council is responsible for its own decisions on the structure, development and operation of its Institutes. This responsibility flows from the Council's Royal Charter…As 1 explained when we met"—
I did indeed meet the Minister—
I am satisfied that, on this occasion also, any decision on restructuring must remain properly with the council.
The village faces major problems as a result of that decision. Unemployment will be created and a valuable source of income to the local economy will disappear. The phased withdrawal, which the Minister suggests will take place over three years, will allow not the sudden transfer of the expertise that he claims is sought, but cherry picking of the best staff, with those who do not want to transfer from north Somerset to Hertfordshire disappearing into the private sector, as has already occurred to a large extent. The closure will also mean a diminution of the research and development base in the south-west.
In addition, the planning decision that I have already set out must make it more likely that land currently controlled by the research station will become available for house building. The university of Bristol, which owns the land, will see an increase in the value of that land, and the financial constraints under which the university labours will make its sale to developers all the more likely.
Those are bad precedents to set for the village, but there are others also. The development in Long Ashton and the potential development of the research station land—which is quite extensive—must set precedents for further building applications in that transport corridor. It must mean that villages such as Backwell, Yatton and Wrington will be vulnerable to the same sort of planning application that has been granted in Long Ashton. My constituents and I are filled with horror when we consider how much of our green land could be lost. The prospect of becoming a single urban conurbation is indeed a horror story.
I would like the Minister to address several specific questions this evening. The Secretary of State will make this decision, as the Minister stated in her letter. How is this application different from the six previous applications that were turned down by the inspector, and therefore by the Secretary of State? What measures will the Government take to protect such greenfield sites in future?
There is a fear in the countryside that we have an urban-dominated Administration who do not care for the countryside. Perhaps most importantly, can the Minister explain the calculation of the housing numbers on which such developments are based? What figures do the civil servants—who no doubt retire to their homes in the home counties and do not have to consider the impact of developments—use to arrive at the numbers? It is a great mystery how the vast numbers of houses are calculated. Why do we need so many new houses and why must they be located in the south-west?
We have made our plans clear: we believe in having a green gap in each town where building of this sort cannot take place. That approach contrasts starkly with recent

ministerial and inspectors' decisions. My constituent, Mr. Barnes of Well Close in Long Ashton, put it well when he wrote:
After 30 years of the villagers trying to protect OUR GREEN VALLEY I was shocked to learn"—
that the Secretary of State—
agreed with the decision…to recommend building on this land 100 houses. He has totally disregarded the SIX previous Inspectors' decisions. The Council, Parish Council and the people do not allow Building in this Green Valley. This will set a precedent of Building on Green Field sites in North Somerset. This also comes on the back of another Government Office Decision to Close the only major employer in Long Ashton…with the loss of 220 jobs.
It is a major blow for this village. When the Minister says that the inspector will submit a report and recommendations to the Secretary of State with whom the final decision will rest, we know that accountability lies with the Minister and her superiors.
Under this Government, a prosperous village is facing rising unemployment, the destruction of its green fields, the building of houses with no infrastructure, more cars, more pollution, more congestion and problems with road safety. The matter lies in the hands of the Secretary of State. The only conclusion that we can draw is that those who make the decisions do not know the area under consideration, the local circumstances or the problems that local people face. They do not understand the problems that people in Long Ashton face, but—perhaps most importantly—we believe that they do not care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing this Adjournment debate. I think it is important for hon. Members to come to the House to raise issues that concern their constituents, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for doing so.
I shall try to deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall first reiterate for him the purpose of the planning system. It is fundamentally to try to reconcile and balance the interests of all those concerned with the development and use of land in an area. The system recognises that there are often strong conflicts of interest in the making of final decisions. It tries to operate openly and fairly both in controlling land use and in promoting sustainable development.
Of course, not everyone is always satisfied with the outcome of a particular decision on land use, and we have heard today, rightly, some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about his local area. I assure him that the planning system operates to try to balance interests. It has never been the case that there is a right of veto on development in a particular area, and I am surprised by his comments about the inspectors. Their role is designed so that they are independent of all those strongly held interests precisely so that they can try to reach a balanced judgment in decisions that are often difficult. If the hon. Gentleman is querying the independence of the inspector's role, he is challenging a fundamental characteristic of the planning system.

Dr. Fox: I am not challenging the independence of inspectors per se. My specific question was why, if six earlier inquiries had come to the same conclusion that


development should not go ahead, the Secretary of State agreed that house building should occur in this case? What was different about this inspector's conclusions?

Ms Hughes: I heard the hon. Gentleman's contention that there had been six previous occasions on which different conclusions were drawn. If he knows the detailed, complex history of the various decisions and appeals relating to this site, he will know that his question is not straightforward. At least one decision by an inspector was overturned because throughout the inquiry he wrongly assumed that the land was greenbelt land. His decision was subsequently quashed by a court. The decision-making in this case has a tortuous history, and I shall go over that in a moment.
First, however, in the case of the Long Ashton appeal, I cannot comment on the merit of the specific planning decision because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Secretary of State has made his decision not to overturn the inspector's decision, and there follows a six-week period in which aggrieved parties can make application to the High Court. I cannot prejudice the position of the Secretary of State or any other party because we are still within that six-week period, which ends on 17 November.
I want to make general remarks about greenbelt policy, which was at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because the debate is about greenbelt land at Long Ashton. It is very important first to stress that the land to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not have greenbelt status. However, before I say what status it has, which is germane to the issue, I want to restate our policy on green belts.
We remain firm in our commitment to green belts. I confirmed that in an Opposition day debate as recently as 2 November. Green belts are meant to remain open for as far ahead as we can reasonably foresee, and there should be a strong presumption against inappropriate development in them. That does not mean, however, that development cannot take place in green belts. It means that inappropriate development can take place only where very special circumstances exist, and we take that policy very seriously.
As I said, the Government remain committed to their policy on green belts, but it has always been open to local authorities, if they wish, to propose changes to greenbelt boundaries, and that has been attempted in relation to the land at Long Ashton on two occasions. However, such changes must be exceptional; they should take place only after rigorous examination of all the options. Furthermore, they should be open to full public consultation.
If it is proposed to add land to existing green belt—as has been twice attempted on the site referred to by the hon. Gentleman—it must form part of the development plan process. The onus is on the local authority to show that one of the five purposes of including land in green belts has been met. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, those purposes are to stop urban sprawl, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging, to help safeguard the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and character of historic towns and to encourage the recycling of urban land.
There has been no change in that policy; it remains the same as that of the previous Administration in PPG2, published in 1995. However, not only is the piece of land that we are discussing not greenbelt land, it has yet

another status. In the plan, it is earmarked as safeguarded or white land. White land is not covered by greenbelt status; it is land between the urban area and the green belt that may be required to meet longer-term development needs. The purpose of white land is to help safeguard the green belt—that is most important—by providing a reserve of land that could be built on in future, thus avoiding taking land out of the green belt. Safeguarded land does not mean that land so designated is being safeguarded for future addition to the green belt. Quite the contrary—safeguarded land can be built on in future so as to preserve adjacent greenbelt land. That is the status of that piece of land in the plan.
The Long Ashton site is not in the green belt; it was excluded in 1966. Although there have been two attempts since then to include the site in the green belt, both were quashed by the courts. When the hon. Gentleman says that decisions have been taken time after time to include the land in the green belt, that is not true.
The Woodspring local plan was put on deposit in 1995. That was the first attempt to include the land in the green belt. On behalf of the Secretary of State, the Government office of the south-west objected to that proposal, because the council had not shown the exceptional circumstances required to remove the land from its white land status into the green belt. At the public inquiry held to hear objections, the council accepted that it could not justify the change. The inquiry inspector—who is independent—concluded that there was no compelling case for a departure from national policy so as to include the land in the green belt.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, North Somerset council, the successor authority to Woodspring district council, decided not to accept the inspector's recommendation. The council's proposed modifications, published in June this year, did not allocate the site for housing—as the inspector had most recently recommended—and proposed extension of the green belt around the site. In its response to the inspector's report, the council again stated that it could not identify any exceptional circumstances to justify the proposed extension to the green belt. That is why the Government office of the south-west objected to the council's decision not to accept the inspector's recommendation; the office again pointed to the council's failure to identify exceptional circumstances.
The council is still considering its response to that objection. I understand that it is likely to publish further modifications to the plan in the near future, but I cannot speculate on that matter. As I do not know what the council will propose, I cannot say what the Secretary of State's response might be.
I have spoken at length about the history of the land at Long Ashton. I apologise to the House for that, because it is a complex matter. However, we need to understand that complex history in the light of the hon. Gentleman's contentions as to what is happening at Long Ashton. That history sets the context for the Secretary of State's view on the local plan, and explains the relationship between the site and the green belt. The site remains outside the green belt because there has been no change to the boundary. It still has the status of white land—a protection for the green belt as land on which development is always possible.
The Government are committed to protecting the green belt. We are committed to taking into account all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises on housing, housing need, transport and infrastructure in considering development. That is firmly our policy.
As the hon. Gentleman said, he has written very recently to the Secretary of State, raising concerns about the draft planning guidance for the south-west. He raised points about the housing numbers that might be included in that.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that civil servants produce the figures to which he is objecting. The conference of planning authorities produced the original figures that will be considered by an independent panel in March. The Secretary of State will ultimately make a decision on those figures when he approves regional planning guidance. At the moment, the figures that he sees have nothing to do with civil servants. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know more about the process. Draft regional planning guidance will be considered at a public examination in the spring, so 1 cannot comment further on it now.
The Government remain committed to the green belt as a means of protecting our countryside. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about all the factors that need to be taken into account in considering development. Protection of the green belt remains as strong as ever. As I said last week, our record on that in the past two years has been much better than that of his Government over the previous 10 years, during which green belt was lost every year.
Although some commentators choose to emphasise development proposals that might threaten the green belt, as the hon. Gentleman has, the truth is that it is beginning to expand under this Government. Adopted green belts now cover 12 per cent. of England, which is more than double the figure some 20 years ago.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance that we place on achieving sustainable development and making sensible decisions about housing development. Within that, we shall protect the green belt as far as we possibly can, consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and of meeting the wide variety of needs of people living and working in an area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.